4.3 Review

Designing the Next Generation of Vaccines for Global Public Health

期刊

OMICS-A JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 545-566

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/omi.2010.0127

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vaccine research and development are experiencing a renaissance of interest from the global scientific community. There are four major reasons for this: (1) the lack of efficacious treatment for many devastating infections; (2) the emergence of multidrug resistant bacteria; (3) the need for improving the safety of the more traditional licensed vaccines; and finally, (4) the great promise for innovative vaccine design and research with convergence of omics sciences, such as genomics, proteomics, immunomics, and vaccinology. Our first project based on omics was initiated in 2000 and was termed reverse vaccinology. At that time, antigen identification was mainly based on bioinformatic analysis of a singular genome. Since then, omics-guided approaches have been applied to its full potential in several proof-of-concept studies in the industry, with the first reverse vaccinology-derived vaccine now in late stage clinical trials and several vaccines developed by omics in preclinical studies. In the meantime, vaccine discovery and development has been further improved with the support of proteomics, functional genomics, comparative genomics, structural biology, and most recently vaccinomics. We illustrate in this review how omics biotechnologies and integrative biology are expected to accelerate the identification of vaccine candidates against difficult pathogens for which traditional vaccine development has thus far been failing, and how research will provide safer vaccines and improved formulations for immunocompromised patients in the near future. Finally, we present a discussion to situate omics-guided rational vaccine design in the broader context of global public health and how it can benefit citizens in both developed and developing countries.

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

4.3
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