4.6 Review

From Monovalent to Multivalent Vaccines, the Exploration for Potential Preventive Strategies Against Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease (HFMD)

期刊

VIROLOGICA SINICA
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 167-175

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s12250-020-00294-3

关键词

Hand; foot; and mouth disease (HFMD); Inactivated whole virus vaccine; Virus-like particles; Multivalent vaccines; Chimeric vaccines

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672018]
  2. National 13th Five-Year Grand Program on Key Infectious Disease Control [2017ZX10202102]
  3. 13th Five-Year National Science and Technology Major Project for infectious Diseases [2017ZX10305501-002]
  4. Shanghai Pujiang Program [19PJ1409100]
  5. Shanghai Science and Technology Commission [18DZ2293000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent emergence of Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease (HFMD) as a global public threat has prompted the development of a vaccine for control. Challenges include changes in pathogen spectrum and the need for multivalent vaccines against different serotypes. Recent advances in HFMD vaccine development aim to establish a cross-protective antibody response.
Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) recently emerged as a global public threat. The licensure of inactivated enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) vaccine was the first step in using a vaccine to control HFMD. New challenges arise from changes in the pathogen spectrum while vaccines directed against other common serotypes are in the preclinical stage. The mission of a broad-spectrum prevention strategy clearly favors multivalent vaccines. The development of multivalent vaccines was attempted via the simple combination of potent monovalent vaccines or the construction of chimeric vaccines comprised of epitopes derived from different virus serotypes. The present review summarizes recent advances in HFMD vaccine development and discusses the next steps toward a safe and effective HFMD vaccine that is capable of establishing a cross-protective antibody response.

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

4.6
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