4.6 Article

An Intramuscular DNA Vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 Decreases Viral Lung Load but Not Lung Pathology in Syrian Hamsters

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9051040

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; syrian hamster model; DNA Vaccine

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program, NIAID, NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated a DNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Syrian hamsters, showing significant antibody responses and reduced viral loads, but inability to completely prevent lung pathology. The combination of intramuscular and intranasal vaccine administration did not show clear effectiveness in reducing lung viral titers or pathology.
The 2019 novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, first reported in December 2019, has infected over 102 million people around the world as of February 2021 and thus calls for rapid development of safe and effective interventions, namely vaccines. In our study, we evaluated a DNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in the Syrian hamster model. Hamsters were vaccinated with a DNA-plasmid encoding the SARS-CoV-2 full length spike open reading frame (ORF) to induce host cells to produce spike protein and protective immune responses before exposure to infectious virus. We tested this vaccine candidate by both intranasal (IN) and intramuscular (IM) routes of administration and complexing with and without an in vivo delivery reagent. Hamsters receiving prime-boost-boost IM-only vaccinations recovered body weight quicker, had decreased lung viral loads, and increased SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titers compared to control vaccinated animals but, surprisingly, lung pathology was as severe as sham vaccinated controls. The IM/IN combination group showed no efficacy in reducing lung virus titers or pathology. With increasing public health need for rapid and effective interventions, our data demonstrate that in some vaccine contexts, significant antibody responses and decreased viral loads may not be sufficient to prevent lung pathology.

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