Key result
The noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain showed comparable in vitro replication to circulating strains but avoided the severe lesions and mortality in neonatal mice caused by the CC024 strain.
The noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain demonstrates lower in vivo pathogenicity while maintaining replication capacity, making it a potentially safer vaccine candidate for hand, foot, and mouth disease.
CC024 strain lesions caution vaccine candidate selection; leaves open optimal CV vaccine development for clinical use.
An enterovirus 71 (EV71) vaccine for the prevention of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HMFD) is available, but it is not known whether the EV71 vaccine cross-protects against Coxsackievirus (CV) infection. Furthermore, although an inactivated circulating CVA16 Changchun 024 (CC024) strain vaccine candidate is effective in newborn mice, the CC024 strain causes severe lesions in muscle and lung tissues. Therefore, an effective CV vaccine with improved pathogenic safety is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo safety and in vitro replication capability of a noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain. The replication capacity of circulating CVA16 strains CC024, CC045, CC090 and CC163 and the noncirculating SHZH05 strain was evaluated by cytopathic effect in different cell lines. The replication capacity and pathogenicity of the CC024 and SHZH05 strains were also evaluated in a neonatal mouse model. Histopathological and viral load analyses demonstrated that the SHZH05 strain had an in vitro replication capacity comparable to the four CC strains. The CC024, but not the SHZH05 strain, became distributed in a variety of tissues and caused severe lesions and mortality in neonatal mice. The differences in replication capacity and in vivo pathogenicity of the CC024 and SHZH05 strains may result from differences in the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of viral functional polyproteins P1, P2 and P3. Our findings suggest that the noncirculating SHZH05 strain may be a safer CV vaccine candidate than the CC024 strain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2015) studied Coxsackievirus A16 infection. Noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain vs. Circulating CVA16 CC024 strain was evaluated on In vitro replication capacity and in vivo pathogenicity (lesions and mortality). The noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain showed comparable in vitro replication to circulating strains but avoided the severe lesions and mortality in neonatal mice caused by the CC024 strain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: