Comparative analysis of the immunogenicity of monovalent and multivalent rotavirus immunogens

Abstract

The strategies for developing rotavirus (RV) vaccines have always been controversial. At present, both the monovalent RV vaccine and the multivalent RV vaccine have displayed excellent safety and efficacy against RV infection and shown cross-reactive immunity, which laid the question whether the multivalent RV vaccine could be replaced by the monovalent RV vaccine. In this study, we focused on comparing the immunogenicity (serum neutralization activity and protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs’ challenge) of individual standard RV strains (monovalent RV immunogens) and different combinations of them (multivalent RV immunogens). In result, RV immunogens showed general immunogenicity and heterotypic reaction but the multivalent RV immunogens exhibited greater serum neutralization activity and stronger heterotypic reaction than the monovalent RV immunogens (P<0.05). As to the protection, the multivalent RV immunogens also revealed more rapid and stronger protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs’ challenge than the monovalent RV immunogens. The results demonstrated that both the monovalent and multivalent RV immunogens exhibited high immunogenicity, but the monovalent RV immunogens could not provide enough neutralization antibodies to protect MA104 cells against the infection with heterotypic RV strains and timely protection against homotypic and heterotypic RVs, so the multivalent RV vaccine could not be replaced by the monovalent RV vaccine.

Transcriptomic profiling of different responder types in adults after a Priorix® vaccination

“…The exact cause of this inability to build up consistent high Ab protection levels against all 3 MMR viruses could not be defined based on the gene expression profiles. The difference in immunogenicity for each vaccine component within monovalent vaccines compared to combined vaccines is less studied for MMR [24][25][26][27]. As monovalent vaccines require more shots and create a delay in protection for all three infections due to separate vaccination schedules, health care providers and pharma industry are focused on developing combined vaccines [28].…”

Oral immunization with rotavirus VP7‑CTB fusion expressed in transgenic Arabidopsis�thaliana induces antigen‑specific IgA and IgG and passive protection in mice

“…To determine the neutralizing activity of anti-HRVVP7 antibodies in the serum samples, the best result (as described above) was mixed with 100 µl 200 PFU of SA11 virus (provided by Dr. Zhen Lang Sun, Central Hospital of Fengxian District of Shanghai, Shanghai, China) in a 1:1 volumetric ratio. Neutralization assays were performed in MA104 cells [originally thought to originate from Rhesus macaque and later corrected to originate from African green monkey ( 31 )], which are suitable for rotavirus research ( 32 , 33 ). The neutralized virus was subsequently added to the culture medium of MA104 cells and cultured at 37°C in an atmosphere containing 5% CO2.…”

Catching a SPY: Using the SpyCatcher-SpyTag and Related Systems for Labeling and Localizing Bacterial Proteins

“…The next step was to check whether multiple antigens could be coupled to the OMV surface in an iterative fashion by using the alternating combinations of the SpyCatcher and SnoopCatcher systems flanking the antigen proteins. Combinations of antigens to form multivalent OMV-based vaccines can significantly improve their efficiency, either by eliciting a stronger immune response to a particular pathogen, or by providing a broader response by combining antigens from multiple pathogens [94,95]. For this approach, they treated the OMVs with PspAα fusion and a SnoopCatcher–SP1690–SpyTag fusion with wash steps in between, successfully forming bipartite (Figure 7B) and tripartite (Figure 7C) coupling adducts.…”