4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Prevalence of factor H-binding protein variants and NadA among meningococcal group B isolates from the United States: Implications for the development of a multicomponent group B vaccine

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 195, 期 10, 页码 1472-1479

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/514821

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [C06RR16226, C06 RR016226] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [K24 AI52788, R21 AI061533, K24 AI052788, R01 AI058122, R01 AI46464, R01 AI046464, R01 AI046464-01A1, R01 AI61533] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Two promising recombinant meningococcal protein vaccines are in development. One contains factor H-binding protein (fHBP) variants (v.) 1 and 2, whereas the other contains v.1 and 4 other antigens discovered by genome mining (5 component [5C]). Antibodies against fHBP are bactericidal against strains within a variant group. There are limited data on the prevalence of strains expressing different fHBP variants in the United States. Methods. A total of 143 group B isolates from patients hospitalized in the United States were tested for fHBP variant by quantitative polymerase chain reaction, for reactivity with 6 anti-fHBP monoclonal antibodies (MAb) by dot immunoblotting, and for susceptibility to bactericidal activity of mouse antisera. Results. fHBP v.1 isolates predominated in California (83%), whereas isolates expressing v.1 (53%) or v.2 (42%) were common in 9 other states. Isolates representative of 5 anti-fHBP MAb-binding phenotypes (70% of isolates) were highly susceptible to anti-fHBP v.1 or v.2 bactericidal activity, whereas 3 phenotypes were similar to 50% susceptible. Collectively, antibodies against the fHBP v.1 and v.2 vaccine and the 5C vaccine killed 76% and 83% of isolates, respectively. Conclusions. Susceptibility to bactericidal activity can be predicted, in part, on the basis of fHBP phenotypes. Both vaccines have the potential to prevent most group B disease in the United States.

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