See the published version of this preprint at Infectious Diseases of Poverty.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Sholpan Ryskeldinova
Research institute for biosafety problems
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-8486
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: A new candidate vector vaccine against human brucellosis based on recombinant influenza viral vectors (rIVV) subtypes H5N1 expressing Brucella Omp16, L7/L12, Omp19 or Cu-Zn SOD proteins has been developed. This paper presents the results of the study of the safety and protective properties of the vaccine with various options of administering, dosing and frequency of use on guinea pigs.
Methods: The safety of the vaccine was assessed based on the general condition, behavior and dynamics of a guinea pig weight-gain test. The effectiveness of the new anti-brucellosis vector vaccine was determined by studying its protective effect after conjunctival, intranasal and sublingual administration in doses 105 EID50, 106 EID50 and 107 EID50 during prime and boost vaccinations of animals, followed by challenge with a virulent strain of B. mellitensis 16M infection. For sake of comparison, the commercial B. melitensis Rev.1 vaccine was used as a control. The protective properties of vaccines were assessed by quantitation of Brucella colonization in organs and tissues of infected animals and compared to the control groups.
Results: It was found that the vaccine after prime and booster immunization using conjunctival, intranasal and sublingual routes of administration, as well as after using various doses of vaccine were safe for guinea pigs. The most optimal way of using the vaccine has been established: double intranasal immunization of guinea pigs at a dose of 106 EID50, which provides 80% protection of guinea pigs from B. melitensis 16M infection (P < 0.05), which is comparable to the results of the effectiveness of the commercial B. melitensis Rev.1 vaccine.
Conclusions: We developed effective vaccine candidate against brucellosis and developed its immunization protocol in guinea pig model. We believe that this study is a substantial step for using the vaccine for future pre-clinical and clinical trials in human.
Keywords
Human brucellosis, influenza viral vectors, vaccine candidate, safety, protection, guinea pigs, pre-existing immunity.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Infectious Diseases of Poverty.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 26 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 13 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 13 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 28 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 13 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 11 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 02 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 31 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 23 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 09 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Infectious Diseases
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Infectious Diseases of Poverty.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Sholpan Ryskeldinova
Research institute for biosafety problems
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-8486
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Infectious Diseases of Poverty.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 26 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 13 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 13 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 13 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 28 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Nov, 2020
Version 2
Posted 13 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 12 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 11 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 02 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 31 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 23 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 Aug, 2020
First submitted
On 09 Aug, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Infectious Diseases
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Infectious Diseases of Poverty.
Background: A new candidate vector vaccine against human brucellosis based on recombinant influenza viral vectors (rIVV) subtypes H5N1 expressing Brucella Omp16, L7/L12, Omp19 or Cu-Zn SOD proteins has been developed. This paper presents the results of the study of the safety and protective properties of the vaccine with various options of administering, dosing and frequency of use on guinea pigs.
Methods: The safety of the vaccine was assessed based on the general condition, behavior and dynamics of a guinea pig weight-gain test. The effectiveness of the new anti-brucellosis vector vaccine was determined by studying its protective effect after conjunctival, intranasal and sublingual administration in doses 105 EID50, 106 EID50 and 107 EID50 during prime and boost vaccinations of animals, followed by challenge with a virulent strain of B. mellitensis 16M infection. For sake of comparison, the commercial B. melitensis Rev.1 vaccine was used as a control. The protective properties of vaccines were assessed by quantitation of Brucella colonization in organs and tissues of infected animals and compared to the control groups.
Results: It was found that the vaccine after prime and booster immunization using conjunctival, intranasal and sublingual routes of administration, as well as after using various doses of vaccine were safe for guinea pigs. The most optimal way of using the vaccine has been established: double intranasal immunization of guinea pigs at a dose of 106 EID50, which provides 80% protection of guinea pigs from B. melitensis 16M infection (P < 0.05), which is comparable to the results of the effectiveness of the commercial B. melitensis Rev.1 vaccine.
Conclusions: We developed effective vaccine candidate against brucellosis and developed its immunization protocol in guinea pig model. We believe that this study is a substantial step for using the vaccine for future pre-clinical and clinical trials in human.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Loading...