Evidence for Protection against Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Chimpanzees by Immunization with Replicating Recombinant Vaccinia Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the failures of nonreplicating vaccines against chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, we hypothesized that a replicating viral vector may provide protective immunity. Four chimpanzees were immunized transdermally twice with recombinant vaccinia viruses (rVV) expressing HCV genes. After challenge with 24 50% chimpanzee infective doses of homologous HCV, the two control animals that had received only the parental VV developed chronic HCV infection. All four immunized animals resolved HCV infection. The difference in the rate of chronicity between the immunized and the control animals was close to statistical significance (P = 0.067). Immunized animals developed vigorous gamma interferon enzyme-linked immunospot responses and moderate proliferative responses. To investigate cross-genotype protection, the immunized recovered chimpanzees were challenged with a pool of six major HCV genotypes. During the acute phase after the multigenotype challenge, all animals had high-titer viremia in which genotype 4 dominated (87%), followed by genotype 5 (13%). However, after fluctuating low-level viremia, the viremia finally turned negative or persisted at very low levels. This study suggests the potential efficacy of replicating recombinant vaccinia virus-based immunization against chronic HCV infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".