Unknown

Dataset Information

0

A mucosal adjuvant for the inactivated poliovirus vaccine.


ABSTRACT: The eradication of poliovirus from the majority of the world has been achieved through the use of two vaccines: the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and the live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Both vaccines are effective at preventing paralytic poliomyelitis, however, they also have significant differences. Most importantly for this work is the risk of revertant virus from OPV, the greater cost of IPV, and the low mucosal immunity induced by IPV. We and others have previously described the use of an alphavirus-based adjuvant that can induce a mucosal immune response to a co-administered antigen even when delivered at a non-mucosal site. In this report, we describe the use of an alphavirus-based adjuvant (GVI3000) with IPV. The IPV-GVI3000 vaccine significantly increased systemic IgG, mucosal IgG and mucosal IgA antibody responses to all three poliovirus serotypes in mice even when administered intramuscularly. Furthermore, GVI3000 significantly increased the potency of IPV in rat potency tests as measured by poliovirus neutralizing antibodies in serum. Thus, an IPV-GVI3000 vaccine would reduce the dose of IPV needed and provide significantly improved mucosal immunity. This vaccine could be an effective tool to use in the poliovirus eradication campaign without risking the re-introduction of revertant poliovirus derived from OPV.

SUBMITTER: Steil BP 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3967568 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

A mucosal adjuvant for the inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

Steil Benjamin P BP   Jorquera Patricia P   Westdijk Janny J   Bakker Wilfried A M WA   Johnston Robert E RE   Barro Mario M  

Vaccine 20131213 5


The eradication of poliovirus from the majority of the world has been achieved through the use of two vaccines: the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and the live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Both vaccines are effective at preventing paralytic poliomyelitis, however, they also have significant differences. Most importantly for this work is the risk of revertant virus from OPV, the greater cost of IPV, and the low mucosal immunity induced by IPV. We and others have previously desc  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC9161111 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10895964 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4673562 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8030725 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9189759 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6200014 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4462654 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10389671 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3330118 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9470102 | biostudies-literature