MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395448924 · doi:10.3201/eid3005.231248

Protective Efficacy of Lyophilized Vesicular Stomatitis Virus–Based Vaccines in Animal Model

2024· article· en· W4395448924 on OpenAlexaff
Abdjeleel Salawudeen, Geoff Soule, Nikesh Tailor, Levi Klassen, Jonathan Audet, Angela Sloan, Yvon Deschambault, David Safronetz

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVesicular stomatitis virusVesicular StomatitisVirologyVesicular stomatitis Indiana virusStomatitisVirusBiologyMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L ive recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) expressing the Ebola virus (EBOV) glycoprotein (VSV∆G/EBOVGP) was evaluated during 2014-2015 as a vaccine to limit the effects of EBOV disease (1).Because of the success and safety of the EBOV vaccine, similar VSV-based vaccines have been proposed for Sudan and Marburg viruses and for other etiologic agents of viral hemorrhagic fever diseases, such as Lassa virus (LASV) (2).Cold chain maintenance for distributing and storing VSV-based vaccines is a logistical challenge, especially when ultralow temperatures (-60°C to -80°C) are required.The challenge is greater in rural areas, particularly in developing countries, where infrastructure and transport systems are often deficient.We evaluated the effects of lyophilization on the in vitro recoverability and in vivo protective efficacy of VSV-based vaccines.We conducted animal studies in accordance with the Canadian Council of Animal Care guidelines; studies received approval from the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health's institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.We performed work involving infectious Lassa virus in a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory within the Public Health Agency of Canada.When required, we inactivated materials for subsequent analysis according to approved procedures. The StudyWe conducted propagation and titration (50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID 50 ]) of VSV∆G/EBOVGP and VSV-based LASV (VSV∆G/LASVGPC) vaccines by using Vero E6 cells as previously described (3).We evaluated 4 excipients as stabilizers: 2.5% lactalbumin hydrolysate (L), 5% sucrose (S), 2.5% trehalose (T), and 0.25% gelatin (G).We prepared 2× concentrations of each solution initially in Hanks' balanced salt solution and then evaluated 3 combinations (LS, LST, or LSTG) (4,5).The control formulation for lyophilization was Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) without additives.We mixed each excipient combination 1:1 with VSV∆G/EBOVGP (stock titer 1.26 × 10 7 TCID 50 /mL) or VSV∆G/LASVGPC (2.83 × 10 7 TCID 50 /mL) and dispensed 200 µL of the mixture into 4 mL sterile glass vials (Electron Microscopy Sciences, https://www.emsdiasum.com).We lyophilized the vaccine mixtures by using an automated FreeZone Triad Benchtop Freeze Dryer (Labconco, https:// www.labconco.com)according to the manufacturer's specifications (Appendix Table, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/EID/article/30/5/23-1248-App1.pdf).We stored the vials at 4°C, 21°C, or 37°C for 1, 7, 30, and 90 days after lyophilization.At those time points, we reconstituted each vaccine/stabilizer combination in triplicate in 200 µL of 0.85% saline for 1 hour at room temperature by using gentle agitation.We then prepared 10-fold serial dilutions in DMEM and determined virus titers by using standard TCID 50 methodologies, as previously described (3).Titrations of formulations conducted immediately before lyophilization indicated that the addition of stabilizers had Protective Efficacy of Lyophilized Vesicular Stomatitis Virus-Based Vaccines in Animal Model

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207