Pseudoviruses are useful virological tools because of their safety and versatility; however the low titer of these viruses substantially limits their wider applications. We developed a highly efficient pseudovirus production system capable of yielding 100 times more rabies pseudovirus than the traditional method. Employing the high-titer pseudoviruses, we have developed robust in vitro and in vivo neutralization assays for the evaluation of rabies vaccine, which traditionally relies on live-virus based assays. Compared with current rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT), our in vitro pseudovirus-based neutralization assay (PBNA) is much less labor-intensive while demonstrating better reproducibility. Moreover, the in vivo PBNA assay was also found to be superior to the live virus based assay. Following intravenous administration, the pseudovirus effectively infected the mice, with dynamic viral distributions being sequentially observed in spleen, liver and brain. Furthermore, data from in vivo PBNA showed great agreement with those generated from the live virus model but with the experimental time significantly reduced from 2 weeks to 3 days. Taken together, the effective pseudovirus production system facilitated the development of novel PBNA assays which could replace live virus-based traditional assays due to its safety, rapidity, reproducibility and high throughput capacity.

2 Because rabies is fatal in nearly 100% of cases, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is among the most important measures for its prevention and control. For people exposed to rabies virus carrying animals, PEP consists of wound cleansing, rabies vaccination and passive immunization with rabies immune globulin, if necessary.3 A reported 12-15 million people in China receive PEP each year, which results in direct medical expenses around $280 million to $310 million. 4 The intramuscular PEP recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) includes Essen 5-dose regimen and the Zagreb 4-dose regimen (2-1-1 regimen).5 The 2-1-1 regimen has been used in other countries for many years.6-8 However, in China, only the Essen regimen was formally approved since the Primary Hamster Kidney Cell Background: In china, rabies vaccine is only permitted to use under the essen 5-dose regimen for the rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (pep). However, purified chick embryo cell vaccine made in India (Rabipur) has been approved in use under 2-1-1 immune program in 2010. Our objective is to confirm the immunogenicity and safety of pVRV manufactured in china (speeDa) under 2-1-1 program, compared with Rabipur and with the essen 5-dose regimen. Results: all groups showed similar immunogenicity. The neutralizing antibody titers at D14 and D45 of all subjects showed more than 0.5 IU/ml. No moderate and severe adverse effects were observed, though mild adverse reactions may occur. Methods: a total of 112 subjects were divided into three groups: 50 subjects in test group a, 32 subjects in control group B and 30 subjects in control group c. "Zagreb" 2-1-1 program was chosen for group a and B using speeDa and Rabipur, "essen" 5-dose regimen was adopted for group c using speeDa, thus to observe the general and local reactions within 72 h post vaccination. serum samples were also collected at D0, D7, D14 and D45 to determine the rabies serum neutralizing antibody by rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT). conclusions: pVRV (speeDa), under 2-1-1 regimen, is equally safe and immunogenic as the pcecV (Rabipur) for postexposure prophylaxis vaccination.

Background Safe and effective vaccines are urgently needed to end the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to assess the preliminary safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an mRNA vaccine ARCoV, which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD). Methods This single centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial of ARCoV was conducted at Shulan (Hangzhou) hospital in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China. Healthy adults aged 18–59 years negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled and randomly assigned using block randomisation to receive an intramuscular injection of vaccine or placebo. Vaccine doses were 5 μg, 10 μg, 15 μg, 20 μg, and 25 μg. The first six participants in each block were sentinels and along with the remaining 18 participants, were randomly assigned to groups (5:1). In block 1 sentinels were given the lowest vaccine dose and after a 4-day observation with confirmed safety analyses, the remaining 18 participants in the same dose group proceeded and sentinels in block 2 were given their first administration on a two-dose schedule, 28 days apart. All participants, investigators, and staff doing laboratory analyses were masked to treatment allocation. Humoral responses were assessed by measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG using a standardised ELISA and neutralising antibodies using pseudovirus-based and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific T-cell responses, including IFN-γ and IL-2 production, were assessed using an enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assay. The primary outcome for safety was incidence of adverse events or adverse reactions within 60 min, and at days 7, 14, and 28 after each vaccine dose. The secondary safety outcome was abnormal changes detected by laboratory tests at days 1, 4, 7, and 28 after each vaccine dose. For immunogenicity, the secondary outcome was humoral immune responses: titres of neutralising antibodies to live SARS-CoV-2, neutralising antibodies to pseudovirus, and RBD-specific IgG at baseline and 28 days after first vaccination and at days 7, 15, and 28 after second vaccination. The exploratory outcome was SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses at 7 days after the first vaccination and at days 7 and 15 after the second vaccination. This trial is registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000039212). Findings Between Oct 30 and Dec 2, 2020, 230 individuals were screened and 120 eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive five-dose levels of ARCoV or a placebo (20 per group). All participants received the first vaccination and 118 received the second dose. No serious adverse events were reported within 56 days after vaccination and the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate. Fever was the most common systemic adverse reaction (one [5%] of 20 in the 5 μg group, 13 [65%] of 20 in the 10 μg group, 17 [85%] of 20 in the 15 μg group, 19 [95%] of ...

The genetic and/or antigenic differences between street rabies virus (RABV) and vaccine strains could potentially affect effectiveness of rabies vaccines. As such, it is important to continue monitoring the glycoprotein (G) of the street isolates. All RABVG sequences in public database were retrieved and analysed. Using a pseudovirus system, we investigated 99 naturally occurring mutants for their reactivities to well-characterized neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and vaccine-induced antisera. A divergence in G sequences was found between vaccine strains and recent street isolates, with mutants demonstrating resistance to neutralizing mAbs and vaccine-induced antibodies. Moreover, antigenic variants were observed in a wide range of animal hosts and geographic locations, with most of them emerging since 2010. As the number of antigenic variants has increased in recent years, close monitoring on street isolates should be strengthened.

BackgroundHantaan and Seoul viruses, in the Hantavirus genus, are known to cause hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS). The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), as conventional neutralization test for hantaviruses, is laborious and time-consuming. Alternatives to PRNT for hantaviruses are required.MethodsIn this study, the methods for Hantaan and Seoul viruses serological typing including microneutralization test (MNT), pseudoparticle neutralization test (PPNT) and immunofluorescence assay based on viral glycoproteins (IFA-GP) were developed and compared with PRNT using a panel of 74 sera including 44 convalescent sera of laboratory confirmed HFRS patients and 30 patients sera of non-hantavirus infection. Antibody titres and serotyping obtained with different methods above were analyzed by paired-t, linear correlation, McNemar χ2 and Kappa agreement tests.ResultsAntibody titres obtained with MNT50, PPNT50 and IFA-GP were significantly correlated with that obtained with PRNT50 (p < 0.001). GMT determined by PPNT50 was statistically higher than that determined by PRNT50 (p < 0.001), while GMT determined by MNT50 and IFA-GP were equal with (p > 0.05) and less than (p < 0.001) that obtained with PRNT50 respectively. Serotyping obtained with MNT50 and PRNT50, PPNT50 and PRNT50 were highly consistent (p < 0.001), whereas that obtained with IFA-GP and PRNT50 were moderately consistent (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences for serotyping between PRNT50 and MNT50, as well as PRNT50 and PPNT50 (p > 0.05). IFA-GP was less sensitive than PRNT50 and MNT50 for serotyping of hantaviruses infection (p < 0.05). However, for 79.5% (35/44) samples, serotyping determined by IFA-GP and PRNT50 were consistent.ConclusionsMNT50 and PPNT50 both can be used as simple and rapid alternatives to PRNT50, and MNT50 is more specific while PPNT50 is more sensitive than other assays for neutralizing antibody determination. So far, this work has been the most comprehensive comparison of alternatives to PRNT.