ライフサイエンスコーパス: live vaccine

1 ts innate and adaptive immune responses to a live vaccine.

2 potentially enhancing adaptive immunity to a live vaccine.

3 s, including naproxen, ibuprofen and rubella live vaccine.

4 urvival in the gut and contribute to a safer live vaccine.

5 strain, demonstrating its potential use as a live vaccine.

6 he immune system without overattenuating the live vaccine.

7 ous diseases or who have recently received a live vaccine.

8 , have continued to recommend the use of the live vaccine.

9 candidates for vaccination with the current live vaccines.

10 ted strains have the potential to be used as live vaccines.

11 lta T cells might be an important feature of live vaccines.

12 host defenses infection may be prevented by live vaccines.

13 use of reduced safety concerns compared with live vaccines.

14 ns, preventive antibiotics, and avoidance of live vaccines.

15 A highly effective live vaccine (17D) is widely used for travelers to and r

16 milder form of anaplasmosis and is used as a live vaccine against A. marginale There has been less in

17 It swiftly led to development of a live vaccine against chickenpox, which was initially tes

18 essing RSV F protein is a candidate bivalent live vaccine against HPIV3 and RSV.

19 king it potentially useful as a safe form of live vaccine against HSV.

20 es vector system may have potential use as a live vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus, other

21 irus (VV) has been effectively utilized as a live vaccine against smallpox as well as a vector for va

22 Although a live vaccine against Theileria parva has been available

23 ld have implications for the design of novel live vaccines against animal origin influenza viruses.

24 were totally avirulent and were effective as live vaccines against murine typhoid fever.

25 al strategy for developing stably attenuated live vaccines against this type of virus.

26 24 months was reduced for those who received live vaccine alone compared with inactivated alone or co

27 ite contained primarily nucleic acids from a live vaccine, although traces of genes from the infectin

28 bacteria for prophylaxis purposes: including live vaccines and anti-infective agents.

29 It makes live vaccines and engineered cells inherently unreliable

30 All T-cell lymphopenic infants avoided live vaccines and received appropriate interventions to

31 ide critical information on the stability of live vaccines and the risk of reversion to virulence.

32 ltaneously takes advantage of the potency of live vaccines and the safety of killed vaccines.

33 Effective live vaccines are available and the development of rever

34 tanding the mixture of variants present, VZV live vaccines are extremely stable.

35 Live vaccines attenuated through mutations targeting vir

36 cine against TB more potent than the current live vaccine, bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), is despera

37 nt can evade the host immunity elicited by a live vaccine because additional pathogenic mechanisms ar

38 saV) were superior to commercially available live vaccine because they provided both safety and a pro

39 to be genetically distinct from NDV used in live vaccines but related to WS-origin NDV.

40 cilitation occurred between serotypes in the live vaccine candidate evaluated.

41 nuated in vivo with the potential of being a live vaccine candidate.

42 ract of animal models, making it a promising live vaccine candidate.

43 al host and also to develop novel attenuated live vaccine candidates against this disease.

44 LdCen1(-/-) and Ldp27(-/-) are promising as live vaccine candidates against VL since they elicit str

45 LPS vaccine is similar to those reported for live vaccine candidates associated with protective effic

46 vity and contribute to the reactogenicity of live vaccine candidates, but its role in cholera pathoge

47 ses with mutant IFN antagonists as potential live vaccine candidates.

48 ther investigation of their use as potential live vaccine candidates.

49 een have the potential to be investigated as live vaccine candidates.

50 ing how existing antivector immunity impacts live vaccine delivery systems is critical when the same

51 temperature-sensitive, virulence-attenuated live vaccine derivative identified 22 single nucleotide

52 have not been immunized or who are shedding live vaccine-derived viral or bacterial organisms.

53 provides another choice for inclusion in the live vaccine design to increase immunogenicity.

54 It is a live vaccine developed using recombinant DNA technology.

55 ression of HA and NA is a unique strategy in live vaccine development.

56 Attenuation of the live vaccine did not compromise its ability to confer lo

57 nvestigate the reasons underlying this short-lived vaccine effect, we investigated breadth of the T-c

58 ime/boost vaccine approach could induce long-lived vaccine efficacy against M. tuberculosis in C57BL/

59 ated HIV suggests that a naturally occurring live vaccine for AIDS may already exist.

60 Animal models have shown that a live vaccine for AIDS, attenuated in nef, is the best ca

61 that is currently being used as the official live vaccine for bovine brucellosis in the United States

62 e, rough, attenuated mutant widely used as a live vaccine for bovine brucellosis.

63 attenuating target for the development of a live vaccine for hMPV.

64 ia virus (VV), currently used in humans as a live vaccine for smallpox, can interfere with host immun

65 Vaccinia virus, the live vaccine for smallpox, is one of the most successful

66 in (BCG), long appreciated for its role as a live vaccine for the prevention of tuberculosis, is unde

67 novel role for CD8 T cells, and reveal that live vaccines for intracellular bacteria can, under some

68 city and antivector immunity associated with live vaccine (for example, viral) vectors, but their imm

69 After homologous challenge, animals in the live-vaccine group had greatly reduced viral replication

70 nes was observed in bronchial cells from the live-vaccine group.

71 Live vaccine had a higher efficacy for illness given inf

72 Persistence of rubella live vaccine has been associated with chronic skin granu

73 However, development of live vaccines has been hampered by the tendency of such

74 Live vaccines have long been known to trigger far more v

75 genicity coupled with potential reversion of live vaccines have thus far precluded widespread vaccina

76 rted a complete lack of effectiveness of the live vaccine in children.

77 t gp91(-/-) phox mice and was effective as a live vaccine in wild-type mice.

78 ses lacking vhs are attenuated and effective live vaccines in animal models.

79 Pooled efficacy of live vaccines in reducing influenza was 81% (95% CI, 33%

80 The OMPs bound by live vaccine-induced antibody overlapped with OMPs that

81 al decision in the USA to recommend that the live vaccine not be used in 2016-17 and to switch to the

82 Thus, immunization with the live vaccine not only prevented disease but also contrib

83 (IL-17), and IL-22 were stimulated by these live vaccines, only RB51-mediated protection was codepen

84 intramuscularly with either one dose of the live vaccines or 3 doses of 10 mug chemically inactivate

85 velopment of conditional "kill switches" for live vaccines or engineered human cells.

86 diatric emergency because a diagnosis before live vaccines or nonirradiated blood products are given

87 rent degrees of protective efficacy and that live vaccine persistence in the liver is not necessary t

88 otection of neonatal and older animals, oral live vaccines present the attractive property of inducin

89 Long-lived vaccine protection was observed only when Ad5-ID93

90 Live vaccine reduced febrile illness by 72% (95% CI, 20%

91 The success of a non-live vaccine requires improved formulation and adjuvant

92 These two non-live vaccines show different magnitudes of transcription

93 onfirmed the DeltaznuA mutant as a potential live vaccine, since protection against wild-type B. abor

94 r protection against tularemia is a specific live vaccine strain (designated LVS) derived from a viru

95 Infection of mice with <10 Ft Live Vaccine Strain (Ft LVS) organisms i.p. causes a let

96 .) inoculation of the Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (Ft-LVS).

97 n vivo in response to Francisella tularensis Live Vaccine Strain (Ft. LVS) infection.

98 anced by targeting inactivated F. tularensis live vaccine strain (iFt) to FcRs at mucosal sites, via

99 structures of the lipid A from F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) (ATCC 29684), all of the major

100 C as a virulence factor of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) and demonstrated that a Deltat

101 large lethal doses of Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) and Listeria monocytogenes.

102 d intracellular trafficking of F. tularensis Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) and LVS with disruptions of wb

103 PBLs from mice vaccinated with F. tularensis Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) and related attenuated strains

104 Deletion of iclR from the live vaccine strain (LVS) and SchuS4 strain of F. tulare

105 Respiratory infection with the attenuated Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) and the highly virulent SchuS4

106 ve or killed F. tularensis subsp. holarctica live vaccine strain (LVS) by human macrophages.

107 early as 48 h after intranasal F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) challenge.

108 Results demonstrated that the live vaccine strain (LVS) contacted ATI and ATII cells b

109 the present study, mutants of F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) deficient in superoxide dismut

110 We reported previously that F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) elicited strong, dose-dependen

111 The live vaccine strain (LVS) expresses surface fibers resem

112 poson insertion library of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) for mutant strains that invade

113 ore infection of mice with the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) has little impact on the cours

114 sella tularensis have been studied using the live vaccine strain (LVS) in a mouse model, and spleen c

115 vival of the F. tularensis subsp. holarctica live vaccine strain (LVS) in macrophages and epithelial

116 erculosis (M. tb.) or Francisella tularensis Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) in macrophages in vitro, promo

117 uired for the virulence of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) in mice.

118 Here we characterize Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) infection in total tumor necro

119 We report in this study that Ft live vaccine strain (LVS) infection of murine macrophage

120 mice during pulmonary Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) infection.

121 currently available unlicensed F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) is needed to protect against i

122 The F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) is the only vaccine currently

123 Although vaccination with the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis can protect a

124 etermined the transcriptional profile of the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis grown in the

125 Cells of an attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis grown under i

126 Intranasal vaccination with the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis reproducibly

127 significantly resistant to infection by the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis Resistance is

128 B/c mice were infected intranasally with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis subsp. holarc

129 gainst intranasal infection of mice with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis was investiga

130 after intradermal challenge of mice with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis, splenic IL-1

131 ion of A549 airway epithelial cells with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of F. tularensis.

132 e two common features of infections with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of Francisella tularensis with

133 tection against secondary challenge with the live vaccine strain (LVS) of Francisella tularensis.

134 ne model of pulmonary infection by using the live vaccine strain (LVS) of Francisella tularensis.

135 in-17 (IL-17) confers protection against the live vaccine strain (LVS) of Francisella.

136 First, inactivation of FTL_0325 from live vaccine strain (LVS) or FTT0831c from Schu S4 resul

137 munity against lethal Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) or Listeria monocytogenes infe

138 When LPS from the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS) or the highly virulent Schu S4

139 d in macrophages infected with F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) or the virulent SchuS4 strain

140 r humans, i.p. infection of mice with <10 Ft live vaccine strain (LVS) organisms causes lethal infect

141 uated the lethality of primary F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) pulmonary infection in mice th

142 tradermal inoculation with the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) results in a robust Th1 respon

143 tularensis, although a partially protective live vaccine strain (LVS) that is attenuated in humans b

144 mammalian hosts, we tested the ability of a live vaccine strain (LVS) to induce proinflammatory chan

145 We employed Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) to study mechanisms of protect

146 Analysis of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) ultrastructure by electron mic

147 L_0724) as being important for F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) virulence.

148 tory response to Francisella tularensis (Ft) live vaccine strain (LVS) was shown previously to be TLR

149 intranasal inoculation of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) with a 1,000-fold-smaller dose

150 (i.d.) infection with Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS), a model intracellular bacteri

151 he OSU18 genome and the genome of the type B live vaccine strain (LVS), and only 448 polymorphisms ha

152 a, although an attenuated strain, dubbed the live vaccine strain (LVS), is given to at-risk laborator

153 . tularensis, subspecies tularensis, and the live vaccine strain (LVS), subspecies holarctica, by hum

154 ia, such as the model pathogen F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS), the role of B cells themselve

155 tagenesis of F. tularensis subsp. holarctica live vaccine strain (LVS), we identified FTL_0883 as a g

156 ct siderophore utilization by the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS).

157 adaptive immunity to Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

158 marked deletion mutants of the F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

159 tracellular bacterium Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

160 nfection of mice with Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

161 ublethal doses of the Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

162 mals through vaccination with the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS).

163 oduction during infection with F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS).

164 sing as a model the yellow fever virus (YFV) live vaccine strain 17D-204 and its wild-type parental s

165 Living F. tularensis live vaccine strain and Schu S4 did not stimulate secret

166 take of GFP-expressing F. tularensis strains live vaccine strain and Schu S4 was quantified with high

167 e investigated the ability of the attenuated live vaccine strain and virulent Schu S4 strain of F. tu

168 utations of these genes in the F. tularensis live vaccine strain by allelic replacement.

169 d a total of 3,936 transposon mutants of the live vaccine strain for infection in a mouse model of re

170 nor ftlC was required for replication of the live vaccine strain in murine bone marrow-derived macrop

171 glycolipid (FtL) from Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain induces splenic FtL-specific B-1a to

172 o naive mice before intranasal F. tularensis live vaccine strain infection.

173 F. tularensis live vaccine strain invasion of nonprofessional phagocyt

174 feature of the parental strain, whereas the live vaccine strain lacks diversity according to multipl

175 of endotoxicity, we found that F. tularensis live vaccine strain LPS did not behave like either a cla

176 A Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain mutant (sodB(Ft)) with reduced Fe-su

177 charide (O-PS) locus of the still-unlicensed live vaccine strain of F. tularensis (LVS) results in a

178 ontrast to a report that an acrB mutant of a live vaccine strain of F. tularensis has decreased virul

179 t recent clinical isolate and the attenuated live vaccine strain of F. tularensis using a proteomic a

180 ive and paraformaldehyde-fixed F. tularensis live vaccine strain organisms associated with, and were

181 F. tularensis live vaccine strain recruits cholesterol-rich lipid doma

182 Lastly, a genetic screen using the iglE-null live vaccine strain resulted in the identification of ke

183 a Kdo hydrolase in F. tularensis Schu S4 and live vaccine strain strains, in H. pylori 26695 strain a

184 gulf and respond to Francisella by using the live vaccine strain variant and Francisella novicida.

185 lent strain of F. tularensis SCHU S4 and the live vaccine strain were used to investigate the contrib

186 e of F. tularensis subsp. tularensis and the live vaccine strain with human macrophages by immunoelec

187 cularly interested in the F. tularensis LVS (live vaccine strain) clpB (FTL_0094) mutant because this

188 ies holarctica vaccine strain (F. tularensis live vaccine strain) into murine macrophages.

189 Wild type (live vaccine strain) or catalase-deficient F. tularensis

190 with either the virulence-attenuated type B (live vaccine strain) or the highly virulent type A (Schu

191 sp. novicida), and LVS (Ft subsp. holarctica live vaccine strain) were resistant to complement-mediat

192 and dead Escherichia coli, F. novicida, and live vaccine strain, as well as the LPS of E. coli, were

193 tory responses revealed that SchuS4, but not live vaccine strain, induced IFN-beta following infectio

194 In contrast to the attenuated live vaccine strain, infection of human dendritic cells

195 tularensis strain SchuS4, but not attenuated live vaccine strain, inhibit inflammatory responses in v

196 ainst pulmonary infection with F. tularensis live vaccine strain, its production is tightly regulated

197 To assist with the design of a defined live vaccine strain, we sought to determine the genetic

198 compared with infection with the attenuated live vaccine strain.

199 se than that of mice infected with wild-type live vaccine strain.

200 for protective immunity against F.tularensis live vaccine strain.

201 several weeks following immunization with a live vaccine strain.

202 more abundant in the culture filtrate of the live vaccine strain.

203 tracellular bacterium Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain.

204 a, Arizona, and Oregon and the F. tularensis live vaccine strain.

205 after pulmonary infection with F. tularensis live vaccine strain.

206 uring pulmonary infection with F. tularensis live vaccine strain.

207 nactivation of PTEN compared with a virulent live vaccine strain.

208 olase activity in membranes of F. tularensis live vaccine strain.

209 glycolipid (FtL) from Francisella tularensis live-vaccine strain (i) induces FtL-specific B-1a to pro

210 iglB and DeltafopC mutants against pulmonary live-vaccine-strain (LVS) challenge and found that both

211 omplete TCA cycles may prove to be effective live vaccine strains for animals and humans.

212 Despite the availability of live vaccine strains for bovine (S19, RB51) and small ru

213 be candidates for evaluation as attenuated, live vaccine strains in conventionally reared pigs.

214 em include development of safe and effective live vaccine strains possessing predetermined defined at

215 STM-attenuated live vaccine strains SC4A9 (gifsy-1) and SC2D2 (ssaV) we

216 ent F. tularensis subsp. holarctica (type B) live vaccine strains, thereby demonstrating the vaccine

217 vaccines has focused upon the development of live vaccine strains, which have proven more efficacious

218 C (TetC) in different Salmonella typhimurium live vaccine strains.

219 us RNA viruses and may have implications for live vaccine technology.

220 o improving the safety of a highly effective live vaccine that has already been widely applied.

221 ll responses to Mycobacterium bovis BCG, the live vaccine that provides infants protection against th

222 k to studying HAV pathogenesis and producing live vaccines that are not overly attenuated for humans.

223 Live vaccines therefore should be avoided for up to 1 ye

224 against laboratory-confirmed infection (for live vaccine: VE(S) = 41%, 95% confidence interval (CI):

225 attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi live vaccine vector candidates, containing minimal-sized

226 Listeria monocytogenes that can be used as a live vaccine vector in adults is safe and able to induce

227 onstruct for development of Salmonella-based live vaccine vector strains.

228 ummary, we have developed a novel PICV-based live vaccine vector that can express foreign antigens to

229 These results suggest that widely different live vaccine vectors may have little impact upon the div

230 ored should be generally applicable to other live vaccine vectors targeting intracellular pathogens.

231 In vaccine development, with live vaccine vectors, this allows greater flexibility an

232 oach was designed to initiate replication of live vaccine virus from the plasmid in vitro and in vivo

233 Live vaccine virus was necessary for induction of immuni

234 For live vaccine viruses a concern exists, that spillovers f

235 cations as a safety switch for oncolytic and live vaccine viruses.

236 VE(SP) for the live vaccine was higher than for the inactivated vaccine

237 tations provide optimal levels of safety for live vaccines, we felt that additional mutations needed

238 ave shown utility in attenuating V. cholerae live vaccines, we used this genome-wide subset library t

239 These live vaccines were created by transforming DeltaANR and

240 ent measles/mumps/rubella, and two rotavirus live vaccines were partially purified, randomly amplifie

241 immunogenic and could be useful in designing live vaccines with a variety of bacterial species.

242 ould thus combine the superior protection of live vaccines with the safety of dead vaccines.

243 the LR gene mutation into existing modified live vaccines would prevent reactivation from latency in