4.7 Article

A Cross-Reactive Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Targeting Fusion Glycoprotein Function Protects Ferrets Against Lethal Nipah Virus and Hendra Virus Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 S471-S479

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz515

关键词

F glycoprotein; Hendra virus; membrane fusion; monoclonal antibody; Nipah virus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HHSN272201700059C, AI054715, AI077995, AI182121]
  2. Investigators in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Disease Award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  3. Pew Biomedical Scholars Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Nipah virus (NiV) and Hendra virus (HeV) are zoonotic paramyxoviruses that cause severe disease in both animals and humans. There are no approved vaccines or treatments for use in humans; however, therapeutic treatment of both NiV and HeV infection in ferrets and non-human primates with a cross-reactive, neutralizing human monoclonal antibody (mAb), m102.4, targeting the G glycoprotein has been demonstrated. In a previous study, we isolated, characterized, and humanized a cross-reactive, neutralizing anti-F mAb (h5B3.1). The mAb h5B3.1 blocks the required F conformational change needed to facilitate membrane fusion and virus infection, and the epitope recognized by h5B3.1 has been structurally defined; however, the efficacy of h5B3.1 in vivo is unknown. Methods. The post-infection antiviral activity of h5B3.1 was evaluated in vivo by administration in ferrets after NiV and HeV virus challenge. Results. All subjects that received h5B3.1 from 1 to several days after infection with a high-dose, oral-nasal virus challenge were protected from disease, whereas all controls died. Conclusions. This is the first successful post-exposure antibody therapy for NiV and HeV using a humanized cross-reactive mAb targeting the F glycoprotein, and the findings suggest that a combination therapy targeting both F and G should be evaluated as a therapy for NiV/HeV infection.

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