4.7 Article

Inactivated Rabies Virus-Based Ebola Vaccine Preserved by Vaporization Is Heat-Stable and Immunogenic Against Ebola and Protects Against Rabies Challenge

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 220, 期 9, 页码 1521-1528

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz332

关键词

Ebola; rabies; vaccine; preservation by vaporization; stable; protection; challenge model

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI105204]
  2. Jefferson Vaccine Center
  3. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [PD/BD/105847/2014]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PD/BD/105847/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Ebola virus (EBOV) is a highly lethal member of the Filoviridae family associated with human hemorrhagic disease. Despite being a sporadic disease, it caused a large outbreak in 2014-2016 in West Africa and another outbreak recently in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Several vaccine candidates are currently in preclinical and clinical studies but none are stable without cold chain storage. Methods. We used preservation by vaporization (PBV), a novel processing technology to heat-stabilize FiloRab1 (inactivated rabies-based Ebola vaccine), a candidate Ebola vaccine, and stored the vials at temperatures ranging from 4 degrees C to 50 degrees C for 10 days to 12 months. We immunized Syrian hamsters with the best long-term stable FiloRab1 PBV vaccines and challenged them with rabies virus (RABV). Results. Syrian hamsters immunized with FiloRab1 PBV-processed vaccines stored at temperatures of 4 degrees C and 37 degrees C for 6 months, and at 50 degrees C for 2 weeks, seroconverted against both RABV-G and EBOV-GP. Notably, all of the FiloRab1 PBV vaccines proved to be 100% effective in a RABV challenge model. Conclusions. We successfully demonstrated that the FiloRab1 PBV vaccines are stable and efficacious for up to 6 months when stored at temperatures ranging from 4 degrees C to 37 degrees C and for up to 2 weeks at 50 degrees C.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据