Protective Efficacy of Lyophilized Vesicular Stomatitis Virus–Based Vaccines in Animal Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".