4.5 Article

Generation of influenza vaccine viruses on Vero cells by reverse genetics: an H5N1 candidate vaccine strain produced under a quality system

期刊

VACCINE
卷 23, 期 22, 页码 2943-2952

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.08.054

关键词

influenza vaccine; reverse genetics; vero cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human influenza vaccine reference strains are prepared as required when an antigenically new strain is recommended by WHO for inclusion in the vaccine. Currently, for influenza A, these strains are produced by a double infection of embryonated hens' eggs using the recommended strain and the laboratory strain PR8 which grows to high titre in eggs, in order to produce a high growth reassortant (HGR). HGRs are provided by WHO reference laboratories to the vaccine manufacturing industry which use them to prepare seed virus for vaccine production. The use of reverse genetics in preparing vaccine reference strains offers several advantages over the traditional method: (i) the reverse genetics approach is a direct rational approach compared with the potentially hit-or-miss traditional approach; (ii) reverse genetics will decontaminate a wild type virus that may have been derived in a non-validated system, e.g. a cell line not validated for vaccine purposes, or that may contain additional pathogens; (iii) at the plasmid stage, the HA can be engineered to remove pathogenic traits. The use of reverse genetics in deriving HGRs has been demonstrated by several laboratories, including its use in deriving a non-pathogenic reassortant strain from a highly pathogenic virus. In this report, we have advanced the use of reverse genetics by making use of a cell line acceptable for human vaccine production, by demonstrating directly the short time frame in which a reassortant virus can be derived, and by deriving a non-pathogenic pandemic vaccine reference virus in cells validated for vaccine production and under quality controlled conditions. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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