tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One
. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275722.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275722. eCollection 2022.
Comparison of vaccination efficacy using live or ultraviolet-inactivated influenza viruses introduced by different routes in a mouse model
Kyeongbin Baek[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sony Maharjan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Madhav Akauliya[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Bikash Thapa[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Dongbum Kim[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Jinsoo Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Minyoung Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mijeong Kang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Suyeon Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Joon-Yong Bae[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Keun-Wook Lee[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Man-Seong Park[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Younghee Lee[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Hyung-Joo Kwon[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Influenza is a major cause of highly contagious respiratory illness resulting in high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Annual vaccination is an effective way to prevent infection and complication from constantly mutating influenza strains. Vaccination utilizes preemptive inoculation with live virus, live attenuated virus, inactivated virus, or virus segments for optimal immune activation. The route of administration also affects the efficacy of the vaccination. Here, we evaluated the effects of inoculation with ultraviolet (UV)-inactivated or live influenza A virus strains and compared their effectiveness and cross protection when intraperitoneal and intramuscular routes of administration were used in mice. Intramuscular or intraperitoneal inoculation with UV-inactivated Influenza A/WSN/1933 provided some protection against intranasal challenge with a lethal dose of live Influenza A/WSN/1933 but only when a high dose of the virus was used in the inoculation. By contrast, inoculation with a low dose of live virus via either route provided complete protection against the same intranasal challenge. Intraperitoneal inoculation with live or UV-inactivated Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 and intramuscular inoculation with UV-inactivated Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 failed to produce cross-reactive antibodies against Influenza A/WSN/1933. Intramuscular inoculation with live Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 induced small amounts of cross-reactive antibodies but could not suppress the cytokine storm produced upon intranasal challenge with Influenza A/WSN/1993. None of the tested inoculation conditions provided observable cross protection against intranasal challenge with a different influenza strain. Taken together, vaccination efficacy was affected by the state and dose of the vaccine virus and the route of administration. These results provide practical data for the development of effective vaccines against influenza virus.
. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275722.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275722. eCollection 2022.
Comparison of vaccination efficacy using live or ultraviolet-inactivated influenza viruses introduced by different routes in a mouse model
Kyeongbin Baek[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sony Maharjan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Madhav Akauliya[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Bikash Thapa[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Dongbum Kim[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Jinsoo Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Minyoung Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Mijeong Kang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Suyeon Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Joon-Yong Bae[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Keun-Wook Lee[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Man-Seong Park[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Younghee Lee[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Hyung-Joo Kwon[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 36215268
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275722
Abstract
Influenza is a major cause of highly contagious respiratory illness resulting in high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Annual vaccination is an effective way to prevent infection and complication from constantly mutating influenza strains. Vaccination utilizes preemptive inoculation with live virus, live attenuated virus, inactivated virus, or virus segments for optimal immune activation. The route of administration also affects the efficacy of the vaccination. Here, we evaluated the effects of inoculation with ultraviolet (UV)-inactivated or live influenza A virus strains and compared their effectiveness and cross protection when intraperitoneal and intramuscular routes of administration were used in mice. Intramuscular or intraperitoneal inoculation with UV-inactivated Influenza A/WSN/1933 provided some protection against intranasal challenge with a lethal dose of live Influenza A/WSN/1933 but only when a high dose of the virus was used in the inoculation. By contrast, inoculation with a low dose of live virus via either route provided complete protection against the same intranasal challenge. Intraperitoneal inoculation with live or UV-inactivated Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 and intramuscular inoculation with UV-inactivated Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 failed to produce cross-reactive antibodies against Influenza A/WSN/1933. Intramuscular inoculation with live Influenza A/Philippines/2/1982 induced small amounts of cross-reactive antibodies but could not suppress the cytokine storm produced upon intranasal challenge with Influenza A/WSN/1993. None of the tested inoculation conditions provided observable cross protection against intranasal challenge with a different influenza strain. Taken together, vaccination efficacy was affected by the state and dose of the vaccine virus and the route of administration. These results provide practical data for the development of effective vaccines against influenza virus.