4.6 Article

Protection of human influenza vaccines against a reassortant swine influenza virus of pandemic H1N1 origin using a pig model

期刊

RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 6-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.02.022

关键词

Influenza; Pandemic; Pigs; Reassortant; Serology; Vaccine

资金

  1. Chulalongkorn University [RES560530125-HR]
  2. National Research University Project, Office of Higher Education Commission [NRU-59-PPS023-HR]
  3. Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program from Thailand Research Fund [PHD/0075/2556]
  4. [RTA5700085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the pandemic H1N1 emergence in 2009 (pdmH1N1), many reassortant pdmH1N1 viruses emerged and found circulating in the pig population worldwide. Currently, commercial human subunit vaccines are used commonly to prevent the influenza symptom based on the WHO recommendation. In case of current reassortant swine influenza viruses transmitting from pigs to humans, the efficacy of current human influenza vaccines is of interest. In this study, influenza A negative pigs were vaccinated with selected commercial human subunit vaccines and challenged with rH3N2. All sera were tested with both HI and SN assays using four representative viruses from the surveillance data in 2012 (enH1N1, pdmH1N1, rH1N2 and rH3N2). The results showed no significant differences in clinical signs and macroscopic and microscopic findings among groups. However, all pig sera from vaccinated groups had protective HI titers to the enH1N1, pdmH1N1 and rH1N2 at 21 DPV onward and had protective SN titers only to pdmH1N1 and rH1N2 at 21 DPV onward. SN test results appeared more specific than those of HI tests. All tested sera had no cross-reactivity against the rH3N2. Both studied human subunit vaccines failed to protect and to stop viral shedding with no evidence of serological reaction against rH3N2. Sly surveillance is essential for monitoring a novel SN emergence potentially for zoonosis. (C) 2017 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

4.6
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