MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749536717 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.693

ZIKA-001: Safety and Immunogenicity of an Engineered DNA Vaccine Against ZIKA virus infection

2017· article· en· W2749536717 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pablo Tebas, Christine C. Roberts, Kar Muthumani, Emma L. Reuschel, S. M. White, Amir Sada Khan, Trina Racine, Hyeree Choi, Faraz I. Zaidi, Jean Boyer, Sagar B. Kudchodkar, Young K. Park, Sylvie Trottier, Celine Remigio, Diane Krieger, Gary Kobinger, David B. Weiner, Joel N. Maslow

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectZika virusNauseaImmunogenicityVaccinationVirologyDosingVirusImmunologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While Zika virus (ZIKV) infection is typically self-limited, congenital birth defects and Guillain-Barré syndrome are well-described. There are no therapies or vaccines against ZIKV infection. Methods ZIKA-001 is a phase I, open label, clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety, side effect profile, and immunogenicity of a synthetic, DNA vaccine (GLS-5700) targeting the pre-membrane+envelope proteins (prME) of the virus. Two groups of 20 participants received GLS-5700 at one of two dose levels: 1 mg or 2 mg DNA/dose at 0, 4, and 12 weeks. Vaccine was administered as 0.1 or 0.2 ml (1 or 2 mg) intradermal (ID) injection followed by electroporation (EP) with the CELLECTRA®-3P device Results The median age of the 40 participants was 38 (IQR 30–54) years; 60% were female 30% Latino and 78% white. No SAEs have been reported to date. Local minor AEs were injection site pain, redness, swelling and itching that occurred in half of the participants. Systemic adverse events were rare and included headache, myalgias, upper respiratory infections, fatigue/malaise and nausea. Four weeks after the first dose 25% vs. 60% of the participants in the 1 mg and 2 mg dose seroconverted. By week 6, 2 weeks after the second dose, the response was 65 and 84% respectively and 2 weeks after the third dose all participants in both dosing groups developed antibodies. At the end of the vaccination period over 60% of vaccinated person neutralized Zika virus in a vero cell assay and greater than 80% on neuronal cell targets. The protective efficacy of the antibodies generated by the vaccine was evaluated in the lethal IFNAR−/− mouse model. After the intraperitoneal administration of 0.1 ml of either baseline, week 14 serum or PBS the animals were challenged with 106 PFUs of ZIKV PR209 isolate. Whereas animals administered PBS (control) or baseline serum succumbed after a median of 5 days, those pretreated with week 14 serum from study participants survived suggesting that the humoral response generated by the vaccine is protective in this model. Conclusion Our trial shows for the first time in humans the safety and immunogenicity of an engineered DNA encoding consensus viral protein against ZIKV. Future studies will evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine. Disclosures C. C. Roberts, GeneOne: Member, Salary. S. White, GeneOne: Member, Salary. A. S. Khan, Inovio: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. J. Boyer, Inovio: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. Y. K. Park, GeneOne: Board Member, CEO and Employee, Salary and Stock. S. Trottier, Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Investigator, Research grant. C. Remigio, GeneOne: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. G. P. Kobinger, GeneOne: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Grant recipient and Research support. D. Weiner, GeneOne: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Grant recipient, Licensing agreement or royalty and Stock. J. Maslow, GeneOne: Employee, Salary and Stock.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207