4.6 Article

Protection of mice against lethal infection with highly pathogenic H7N7 influenza A virus by using a recombinant low-pathogenicity vaccine strain

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 79, 期 19, 页码 12401-12407

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.79.19.12401-12407.2005

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2003, an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza occurred in the Netherlands. The avian H7N7 virus causing the outbreak was also detected in 88 humans suffering from conjunctivitis or mild respiratory symptoms and one person who died of pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here we describe a mouse model for lethal infection with A/Nethertands/219/03 isolated from the fatal case. Because of the zoonotic and pathogenic potential of the H7N7 virus, a candidate vaccine carrying the avian hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins produced in the context of the high-throughput vaccine strain A/PR/8/34 was generated by reverse genetics and tested in the mouse model. The hemagglutinin gene of the recombinant vaccine strain was derived from a low-pathogenicity virus obtained prior to the outbreak from a wild mallard. The efficacy of a classical nonadjuvanted subunit vaccine and an immune stimulatory complex-adjuvanted vaccine was compared. Mice receiving the nonadjuvanted vaccine revealed low antibody titers, lack of clinical protection, high virus titers in the lungs, and presence of virus in the spleen, liver, kidneys, and brain. In contrast, mice receiving two doses of the immune stimulatory complex-adjuvanted vaccine revealed high antibody titers, clinical protection, similar to 1,000-fold reduction of virus titers in the lungs, and rare detection of the virus in other organs. This is the first report of an H7 vaccine candidate tested in a mammalian model. The data presented suggest that vaccine candidates based on low-pathogenicity avian influenza A viruses, which can be prepared ahead of pandemic threats, can be efficacious if an effective adjuvant is used.

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