Enhancing the performance of sterile filtration for viral vaccines and model nanoparticles using an appropriate prefilter

2022 ◽  
pp. 120264
Author(s):  
Neil Taylor ◽  
Wanli (Justin) Ma ◽  
Adam Kristopeit ◽  
Sheng-Ching Wang ◽  
Andrew L. Zydney
Keyword(s):  
Sterile Filtration ◽  
Viral Vaccines ◽  
Model Nanoparticles

Evaluation of a sterile filtration process for viral vaccines using a model nanoparticle suspension

2020 ◽  
Vol 118 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Taylor ◽  
Wanli Ma ◽  
Adam Kristopeit ◽  
Sheng‐Ching Wang ◽  
Andrew L. Zydney
Keyword(s):  
Filtration Process ◽  
Nanoparticle Suspension ◽  
Sterile Filtration ◽  
Viral Vaccines

Problem and solution concerning viral vaccines.

2017 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tirasak Pasharawipas
Keyword(s):  
Viral Vaccines

scholarly journals Future perspectives on swine viral vaccines: where are we headed?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Opriessnig ◽  
Ashley A. Mattei ◽  
Anbu K. Karuppannan ◽  
Patrick G. Halbur
Keyword(s):  
Fifteenth Century ◽  
Molecular Engineering ◽  
Erysipelothrix Rhusiopathiae ◽  
Herd Health ◽  
Live Virus ◽  
Nucleic Acid Vaccines ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Viral Vaccines ◽  
Virus Strains ◽  
British Physician

AbstractDeliberate infection of humans with smallpox, also known as variolation, was a common practice in Asia and dates back to the fifteenth century. The world’s first human vaccination was administered in 1796 by Edward Jenner, a British physician. One of the first pig vaccines, which targeted the bacterium Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, was introduced in 1883 in France by Louis Pasteur. Since then vaccination has become an essential part of pig production, and viral vaccines in particular are essential tools for pig producers and veterinarians to manage pig herd health. Traditionally, viral vaccines for pigs are either based on attenuated-live virus strains or inactivated viral antigens. With the advent of genomic sequencing and molecular engineering, novel vaccine strategies and tools, including subunit and nucleic acid vaccines, became available and are being increasingly used in pigs. This review aims to summarize recent trends and technologies available for the production and use of vaccines targeting pig viruses.

scholarly journals 241 Trends in the percentage of modified live, killed, and combination respiratory viral vaccines administered to beef calves offered for sale in summer video auctions from 2000 through 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
Maggie J Smith ◽  
Mike E King ◽  
Karol E Fike ◽  
Esther D McCabe ◽  
Glenn M Rogers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trend Test ◽  
Fort Worth ◽  
Single Gender ◽  
Beef Calves ◽  
Vaccine Type ◽  
Viral Vaccine ◽  
Viral Vaccines ◽  
Dramatic Shift ◽  
Armitage Trend Test

Abstract The objective of this study was to identify trends in the percentage of type of respiratory viral vaccines administered to lots of beef calves offered for sale in summer video auctions from 2000 through 2018. There were 59,762 lots of single-gender beef calves (7,167,352 total calves) offered for sale in 145 summer video auctions during these years. Information describing calf lots was obtained from the auction service (Superior Livestock Auction, Fort Worth, TX) which included named vaccines administered to the lot. Named 4- or 5-way respiratory viral vaccines were classified into three groups based on the type of antigens they contained: all modified live antigens (MLV), all killed antigens (KILLED), and a combination of modified live and killed antigens (COMBO). The Cochran-Armitage Trend Test was used to quantify the significance of a trend in the usage of each respiratory viral vaccine type. There was an increase (P < 0.0001) in the percentage of MLV vaccines given to beef calf lots from 2000 (39.7%) through 2018 (88.9%). At the same time, the percentages of both KILLED and COMBO vaccines administered to lots of beef calves declined (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). In 2000, 31.2% and 29.1% of the total respiratory viral vaccines given to beef calf lots were KILLED or COMBO vaccines, respectively. By 2018, only 4.7% of respiratory viral vaccines were KILLED, and only 6.4% were COMBO vaccines. This dramatic shift indicates an industry trend towards increasing MLV vaccine utilization compared with declining usage of KILLED and COMBO vaccines. This trend may be a result of MLV vaccine approval for use in calves nursing pregnant cows.

scholarly journals STUDY THE EFFECT OF MYCOPLASMA CONTAMINATION OF EGGS USED IN VIRUS TITRATION AND EFFICACY OF SOME LIVE ATTENUATED POULTRY VIRAL VACCINES

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwa Fathy ◽  
Mounir M. El-safty ◽  
Jakeen K. El-jakee ◽  
Howaida I. Abd-alla ◽  
Hala Mahmoud
Keyword(s):  
Disease Virus ◽  
Newcastle Disease ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Mycoplasma Gallisepticum ◽  
Infectious Bursal Disease ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Infectious Bronchitis ◽  
Bursal Disease ◽  
Specific Pathogen ◽  
Viral Vaccines

ABSTRACTObjective: The study of Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) infection is needed, not only to understand the disease process but also to understand theinterference with the evaluation of some live viral poultry vaccines. This study aims to investigate the titration and potency of some live attenuatedpoultry viral vaccines; Newcastle disease, infectious bronchitis, infectious bursal disease, and Reo in both specific pathogen-free (SPF) embryonatedchicken eggs (ECEs) and chickens.Methods: Titration of live attenuated viral poultry vaccines in ECEs was carried out by dividing the inoculated eggs into four groups; the pre-,simultaneously-, post-, and non-MG contaminated. MG effect on the potency test was carried out using seventeen groups of SPF chickens (25 chicken/group) placed into separate isolators. Each live attenuated viral poultry vaccine was inoculated into 4 groups.Results: The highest titer of these vaccines that appeared in MG pre- contaminated ECEs were 1011, 107.5, 107.9, and 10, respectively. The lowest vaccinetiters that appeared in non-MG contaminated ECEs were 108, 106, 106.8, and 1067.5, respectively. Although the potency of these previous vaccines indicated thatthe highest antibodies titer that appeared in MG pre-infected vaccinated chickens were 7.5 log, 36 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay unit (EU), and42 EU, respectively; the lowest antibodies titer that appeared in non-MG infected vaccinated chickens were 6.5 log22, 12 EU, 17 EU, and 10 EU, respectively.Conclusion: The present study findings underline the importance of using Mycoplasma -free eggs or chicken for the production of virus vaccines.Keywords: Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Newcastle disease virus, Infectious bronchitis virus, Infectious bursal disease virus, Reo virus, Chicken, Specificpathogen-free eggs.

Viral Vaccines: The Question of Revaccination

JAMA ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 235 (1) ◽  
pp. 63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin C. Linnemann
Keyword(s):  
Viral Vaccines

Vaccine Production

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Porter
Keyword(s):  
Cultured Cells ◽  
Animal Cell ◽  
Infectious Agents ◽  
Vaccine Production ◽  
Expression Systems ◽  
Subunit Vaccines ◽  
Gene Vectors ◽  
Viral Vaccines ◽  
Chicken Eggs ◽  
Embryonated Chicken

Introduction Vaccines are biological products that elicit a protective immune response. The details of the manufacturing processes are varied depending on the particular characteristics of the vaccine. There are classically, three basic types of vaccines against viral and bacterial pathogens (For mRNA-, DNA- and vector-vaccines see Chapters 7, 8, 9): Live-attenuated. Killed (non-live). Subunit. “Classical” Vaccine Production The basic classical process includes 5 phases: expression, harvest, inactivation, purification, formulation. The expression systems for viral and bacterial vaccines are distinct. Bacterial expression is performed in fermenters. Viral vaccines are produced in animal cell culture or embryonated chicken eggs. Processes for whole viral or bacterial vaccines often involve only limited processing after expression. Subunit vaccines routinely require the most purification to separate the product from other contaminants. Challenges Challenges for bacterial vaccines include testing to ensure the safety and efficacy of the product. Inactivation procedures need to be carefully controlled. Live attenuated vaccines need to be tested to ensure the vaccine strains are still safe and effective. Viral vaccines require testing to ensure foreign infectious agents are not introduced during processing. Both cultured cells and egg present risks for infection. Live viral vaccines and gene vectors need to be carefully engineered and tested to minimize safety concerns. Highly variable vaccine targets such as influenza need to be re-adapted to current circulating strains.

scholarly journals How the gut microbiome regulates host immune responses to viral vaccines

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 16-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia N Vlasova ◽  
Sayaka Takanashi ◽  
Ayako Miyazaki ◽  
Gireesh Rajashekara ◽  
Linda J Saif
Keyword(s):  
Immune Responses ◽  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
Host Immune Responses ◽  
Viral Vaccines
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document