4.7 Article

Preclinical efficacy and safety analysis of gamma-irradiated inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83930-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. TUBITAK 2247-C Trainee Researcher Scholarship Program (STAR)
  2. TUBITAK-BIDEB 2244-University-Industry Ph.D. program [118C082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are crucial for reducing disease incidence and mortality. Vaccine models containing GM-CSF induced significant antibody production with neutralization capacity, and the presence of adjuvant was more important in T cell response.
COVID-19 outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2 created an unprecedented health crisis since there is no vaccine for this novel virus. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have become crucial for reducing morbidity and mortality. In this study, in vitro and in vivo safety and efficacy analyzes of lyophilized vaccine candidates inactivated by gamma-irradiation were performed. The candidate vaccines in this study were OZG-3861 version 1(V1), an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine, and SK-01 version 1 (V1), a GM-CSF adjuvant added vaccine. The candidate vaccines were applied intradermally to BALB/c mice to assess toxicity and immunogenicity. Preliminary results in vaccinated mice are reported in this study. Especially, the vaccine models containing GM-CSF caused significant antibody production with neutralization capacity in absence of the antibody-dependent enhancement feature, when considered in terms of T and B cell responses. Another important finding was that the presence of adjuvant was more important in T cell in comparison with B cell response. Vaccinated mice showed T cell response upon restimulation with whole inactivated SARS-CoV-2 or peptide pool. This study shows that the vaccines are effective and leads us to start the challenge test to investigate the gamma-irradiated inactivated vaccine candidates for infective SARS-CoV-2 virus in humanized ACE2+ mice.

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