Mi Kai, Ou Xia, Guo Lili, Ye Jing, Wu Jinyuan, Yi Shan, Niu Xianglian, Sun Xiaoqin, Li Hongjun, Sun Maosheng
Yunnan Key Laboratory of Vaccine Research and Development on Severe Infectious Disease, Institute of Medical Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Kunming, Yunnan Province, the People's Republic of China.
School of Basic Medicine, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan Province, the People's Republic of China.
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 16;12(2):e0172156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172156. eCollection 2017.
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.
轮状病毒(RV)疫苗的研发策略一直存在争议。目前,单价RV疫苗和多价RV疫苗在预防RV感染方面均表现出优异的安全性和有效性,并显示出交叉反应性免疫,这引发了多价RV疫苗是否可被单价RV疫苗替代的问题。在本研究中,我们着重比较了单个标准RV毒株(单价RV免疫原)及其不同组合(多价RV免疫原)的免疫原性(血清中和活性以及对同型和异型RV攻击的保护作用)。结果显示,RV免疫原具有一般免疫原性和异型反应,但多价RV免疫原比单价RV免疫原表现出更强的血清中和活性和更强的异型反应(P<0.05)。在保护作用方面,多价RV免疫原对同型和异型RV攻击的保护作用也比单价RV免疫原更快、更强。结果表明,单价和多价RV免疫原均具有高免疫原性,但单价RV免疫原无法提供足够的中和抗体来保护MA104细胞免受异型RV毒株的感染,也无法及时对同型和异型RV提供保护,因此多价RV疫苗不能被单价RV疫苗替代。