2 resultados para 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) vaccine

em Universidade Complutense de Madrid


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Motivation: Influenza A viral heterogeneity remains a significant threat due to unpredictable antigenic drift in seasonal influenza and antigenic shifts caused by the emergence of novel subtypes. Annual review of multivalent influenza vaccines targets strains of influenza A and B likely to be predominant in future influenza seasons. This does not induce broad, cross protective immunity against emergent subtypes. Better strategies are needed to prevent future pandemics. Cross-protection can be achieved by activating CD8+ and CD4+ T cells against highly-conserved regions of the influenza genome. We combine available experimental data with informatics-based immunological predictions to help design vaccines potentially able to induce cross-protective T-cells against multiple influenza subtypes. Results: To exemplify our approach we designed two epitope ensemble vaccines comprising highlyconserved and experimentally-verified immunogenic influenza A epitopes as putative non-seasonal influenza vaccines; one specifically targets the US population and the other is a universal vaccine. The USA-specific vaccine comprised 6 CD8+ T cell epitopes (GILGFVFTL, FMYSDFHFI, GMDPRMCSL, SVKEKDMTK, FYIQMCTEL, DTVNRTHQY) and 3 CD4+ epitopes (KGILGFVFTLTVPSE, EYIMKGVYINTALLN, ILGFVFTLTVPSERG). The universal vaccine comprised 8 CD8+ epitopes: (FMYSDFHFI, GILGFVFTL, ILRGSVAHK, FYIQMCTEL, ILKGKFQTA, YYLEKANKI, VSDGGPNLY, YSHGTGTGY) and the same 3 CD4+ epitopes. Our USA-specific vaccine has a population protection coverage (portion of the population potentially responsive to one or more component epitopes of the vaccine, PPC) of over 96% and 95% coverage of observed influenza subtypes. The universal vaccine has a PPC value of over 97% and 88% coverage of observed subtypes.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Wildlife vaccination is increasingly being considered as an option for tuberculosis control. We combined data from laboratory trials and an ongoing field trial to assess the risk of an oral Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine and a prototype heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis preparation for Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa). We studied adverse reactions, BCG survival, BCG excretion, and bait uptake by nontarget species. No adverse reactions were observed after administration of BCG (n = 27) or inactivated M. bovis (n = 21). BCG was not found at necropsy (175 to 300 days postvaccination [n = 27]). No BCG excretion was detected in fecal samples (n = 162) or in urine or nasal, oral, or fecal swab samples at 258 days postvaccination (n = 29). In the field, we found no evidence of loss of BCG viability in baits collected after 36 h (temperature range, 11°C to 41°C). Camera trapping showed that wild boar (39%) and birds (56%) were the most frequent visitors to bait stations (selective feeders). Wild boar activity patterns were nocturnal, while diurnal activities were recorded for all bird species. We found large proportions of chewed capsules (29%) (likely ingestion of the vaccine) and lost baits (39%) (presumably consumed), and the proportion of chewed capsules showed a positive correlation with the presence of wild boar. Both results suggest proper bait consumption (68%). These results indicate that BCG vaccination in wild boar is safe and that, while bait consumption by other species is possible, this can be minimized by using selective cages and strict timing of bait deployment.