Plague Immunization, II. Relation of Adverse Clinical Reactions to Multiple Immunizations with Killed Vaccine

Marshall, John D.; Bartelloni, Peter J.; Cavanaugh, Dan C.; Kadull, Paul J.; Meyer, K. F.

doi:10.1093/infdis/129.supplement_1.s19

Cited by 84 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is only expressed at 37°C and is believed to help avoid phagocytosis (9,10). Elevated anti-F1 Ab titers have been correlated with animal survival following plague infection (11). Virulence Ag (V-Ag) 3 is a 37-kDa protein encoded by the lcrV gene on the conserved plasmid pCD1 and plays a multifunctional role in Y. pestis virulence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Vaccination withSalmonellaSimultaneously ExpressingYersinia pestisF1 and V Antigens Protects against Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague

Yang

Hinnebusch

Trunkle

et al. 2007

The Journal of Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gut provides a large area for immunization enabling the development of mucosal and systemic Ab responses. To test whether the protective Ags to Yersinia pestis can be orally delivered, the Y. pestis caf1 operon, encoding the F1-Ag and virulence Ag (V-Ag) were cloned into attenuated Salmonella vaccine vectors. F1-Ag expression was controlled under a promoter from the caf1 operon; two different promoters (P), PtetA in pV3, PphoP in pV4, as well as a chimera of the two in pV55 were tested. F1-Ag was amply expressed; the chimera in the pV55 showed the best V-Ag expression. Oral immunization with Salmonella-F1 elicited elevated secretory (S)-IgA and serum IgG titers, and Salmonella-V-Ag(pV55) elicited much greater S-IgA and serum IgG Ab titers than Salmonella-V-Ag(pV3) or Salmonella-V-Ag(pV4). Hence, a new Salmonella vaccine, Salmonella-(F1+V)Ags, made with a single plasmid containing the caf1 operon and the chimeric promoter for V-Ag allowed the simultaneous expression of F1 capsule and V-Ag. Salmonella-(F1+V)Ags elicited elevated Ab titers similar to their monotypic derivatives. For bubonic plague, mice dosed with Salmonella-(F1+V)Ags and Salmonella-F1-Ag showed similar efficacy (>83% survival) against ∼1000 LD50 Y. pestis. For pneumonic plague, immunized mice required immunity to both F1- and V-Ags because the mice vaccinated with Salmonella-(F1+V)Ags protected against 100 LD50 Y. pestis. These results show that a single Salmonella vaccine can deliver both F1- and V-Ags to effect both systemic and mucosal immune protection against Y. pestis.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Vaccination withSalmonellaSimultaneously ExpressingYersinia pestisF1 and V Antigens Protects against Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague

Yang

Hinnebusch

Trunkle

et al. 2007

The Journal of Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Single concentrations were then selected as those at which optimal DC activation was observed at 48 h. These selected concentrations were used in time-course studies (6,16,24,48, and 72 h) and in the examination of DC interaction with CD40L, MLR, and polarization of effector T cell responses.…”

Section: Vaccine Preparationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The anthrax vaccine, for example, requires doses at 2 and 4 wk, with boosters at 6, 12, and 18 mo and then annually (5). Protection against plague can be achieved after two doses at an interval of 1-4 wk, with boosting every 6 mo (6,7). Even under these circumstances, the protection afforded by vaccines from inhalational anthrax and pneumonic plague may not be ideal (3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Anthrax and Plague Biowarfare Vaccine Interactions with Human Monocyte-Derived Dendritic Cells

Skowera

Jong

Schuitemaker³

et al. 2005

The Journal of Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anti-biowarfare anthrax and plague vaccines require repeated dosing to achieve adequate protection. To test the hypothesis that this limited immunogenicity results from the nature of vaccine interactions with the host innate immune system, we investigated molecular and cellular interactions between vaccines, dendritic cells (DCs), and T cells and explored the potential for adjuvants (pertussis) to boost induction of host immunity. Human monocyte-derived DCs were matured in the presence of vaccines and analyzed for their ability to induce Th1/Th2 development from naive T cells, expression of cell surface maturation/costimulation molecules, and cytokine production. The vaccines showed different behavior patterns. Although the plague vaccine is equivalent to control maturation factors in maturation and stimulation of DCs and induces strong MLR and Th outgrowth, the anthrax vaccine is a poor inducer of DC maturation, as indicated by low levels of HLA-DR, CD86, and CD83 induction and minimal proinflammatory cytokine production. Interestingly, however, anthrax vaccine-treated DCs stimulate Th1 and Th2 outgrowth and a limited MLR response. There was no sustained negative modulatory effects of the anthrax vaccine on DCs, and its limited stimulatory effects could be overridden by coculture with pertussis. These results were supported by analysis of anthrax vaccine recall responses in subjects vaccinated using pertussis as an adjuvant, who demonstrate anthrax-specific effector T cell responses. These data show that the anthrax vaccine is a suboptimal DC stimulus that may in part explain the observation that it requires repeated administration in vivo and offer a rational basis for the use of complementary DC-maturing adjuvants in combined immunotherapy.

show abstract

“…Conversely, the South Vietnamese government gave the live EV or EV76 strain of plague vaccine to its soldiers. (2,3,18,180,(207)(208)(209)(210)(211) American use of plague vaccine declined substantially after the 1960s, given a relatively high degree of injection-site reactions and limited exposure to the bacteria. Today, no plague vaccine licensed by the Food & Drug Administration is manufactured.…”

Section: Plaguementioning

confidence: 99%

Immunization to Protect the U.S. Armed Forces: Heritage, Current Practice, Prospects

Greenwood¹,

Grabenstein²,

Pittman³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Immunization to Protect the U.S. Armed Forces 2 REPORT DATE Immunization to Protect the U.S. Armed Forces:Heritage, Current Practice, ProspectsImmunization protects the personal health of United States military personnel and maintains their mission readiness. The immunization program of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is broad-ranging, protecting the forces from an array of pathogenic threats. Because the active and reserve components of the U.S. DoD consist of over 2.2 million people at any given time, the program immunizes a significant percentage of the U.S. adult population.This article updates and expounds on previous reviews of the U.S. military immunization program, (1-7) discussing historical perspectives, the rationale for current immunization policies, and future prospects. Military immunization requirements often exceed those provided to civilian adults, because of the travel and other occupational hazards confronted by soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, and coast guardsmen. Military immunization requirements are quite similar for each of the five Armed Forces (i.e., Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard). The requirements and recommendations are described in a joint immunization regulation, (8) summarized in table 1.Immunizations have both direct benefit to the recipient and indirect benefit to the people in the community the vaccinee resides in or works with (i.e., "herd immunity"). "Herd immunity" or "community immunity" results when a decreased number of susceptible people and the decreased excretion of infectious particles impairs disease transmission. In military settings, the indirect benefit takes on an additional dimension, insofar as an immunized service member is less likely to succumb to a disease that threatens his or her team's mission. By staying healthy, the immunized service member helps other team members accomplish their mission and return home safely. Due to both direct and indirect benefits, most U.S. military immunizations are required, rather than voluntary. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate records used to document immunizations of troops during World War II.Senior preventive-medicine officers from the five Armed Services develo...

show abstract

Plague Immunization, II. Relation of Adverse Clinical Reactions to Multiple Immunizations with Killed Vaccine

Cited by 84 publications

References 6 publications

Oral Vaccination withSalmonellaSimultaneously ExpressingYersinia pestisF1 and V Antigens Protects against Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague

Oral Vaccination withSalmonellaSimultaneously ExpressingYersinia pestisF1 and V Antigens Protects against Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague

Analysis of Anthrax and Plague Biowarfare Vaccine Interactions with Human Monocyte-Derived Dendritic Cells

Immunization to Protect the U.S. Armed Forces: Heritage, Current Practice, Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About