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

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

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

6 e was defined as receipt of a posttransplant live vaccine.

7 rt for the development of an ASFV attenuated live vaccine.

8 ly as inactivated vaccine or intranasally as live vaccine.

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

10 he immune system without overattenuating the live vaccine.

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

12 further improve the efficacy of the current live vaccines.

13 ified organisms and the development of safe, live vaccines.

14 candidates for vaccination with the current live vaccines.

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

16 host defenses infection may be prevented by live vaccines.

17 lopment of safe and effective ASF attenuated live vaccines.

18 g of the "off-target," beneficial effects of live vaccines.

19 ce T-cell responses was unprecedented in non-live vaccines.

20 There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines.

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

22 use of reduced safety concerns compared with live vaccines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 urkeys and chickens that is widely used as a live vaccine against Marek's disease and as recombinant

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

32 Although a live vaccine against Theileria parva has been available

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

34 can offer a safer alternative to the use of live vaccines against avian and other emerging coronavir

35 otent alternative mucosal vaccine to replace live vaccines against IBV and other emerging coronavirus

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

37 he use of CpG-elevated mutants as attenuated live vaccines against neurotropic viruses.

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

39 24 months was reduced for those who received live vaccine alone compared with inactivated alone or co

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

41 sed for poultry health include both modified live vaccine and inactivated pathogens.

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

43 ion mechanisms and development of attenuated live vaccines and drugs for prevention and control of AS

44 It makes live vaccines and engineered cells inherently unreliable

45 ping novel control tools, including modified live vaccines and other interventions targeting critical

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

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

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

49 Live vaccines are also found to be associated with rare

50 Effective live vaccines are available and the development of rever

51 Next-generation live vaccines are created by autonomous production of ni

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

53 Live vaccines are ideal for inducing immunity but suffer

54 In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunos

55 Modified live vaccines are urgently needed to control aMPV but ar

56 Non-live vaccines are well tolerated in patients receiving g

57 Live vaccines attenuated through mutations targeting vir

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

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

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

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

62 Our pilot study suggests that both live vaccines can be safely and effectively administered

63 ins and even commercially available modified live vaccines can induce abortion, in part because BoHV-

64 nfected with commercially available modified live vaccines, can lead to reproductive complications, i

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

66 This live vaccine candidate was temperature-sensitive, geneti

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

68 thereby adding to the safety profile of this live vaccine candidate.

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

70 RSV/6120/DeltaNS2/1030s is a cDNA-derived live-vaccine candidate attenuated by deletion of the int

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78 Despite their proven efficacy, modified live vaccine constructs take time to produce and could r

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 s a platform for the development of modified live vaccines for a variety of fish and amphibian specie

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

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

99 Generating effective live vaccines from intact viruses remains challenging ow

100 with a single dose of an unmatched modified live vaccine generally accumulated more extensive geneti

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

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

103 Live vaccine had a higher efficacy for illness given inf

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

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

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

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

108 ly attenuated viruses that can be applied as live vaccines.IMPORTANCE Hypervariable domains (HVDs) of

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

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

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

112 recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics

113 eeded to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.

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

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

116 as been hypothesized that revaccination with live vaccines is associated with reductions in off-targe

117 mmunity elicited by the single-dose-modified live vaccine may have exerted positive selection on H1 a

118 Live vaccines (measles-mumps-rubella [MMR] and varicella

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

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

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

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

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

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

125 temic biological immunomodulating treatment, live vaccines, or other investigational treatments), or

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

127 lly, recommendations about administration of live vaccines posttransplant may need to be reevaluated

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

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

130 e herpesvirus 1 (BoHV-1), including modified live vaccines, readily infects the fetus and ovaries, wh

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

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

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

134 However, all three live vaccines significantly outperformed formalin-killed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

156 Previous studies with the attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS) identified a role for the oute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

166 e in protection, we created an F. tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) mutant with a significantly in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200 l of infection with a Francisella attenuated live vaccine strain (LVS), which is under study as a hum

201 Live vaccine strain (LVS)-vaccinated rabbits were challe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

219 F. tularensis live vaccine strain invasion of nonprofessional phagocyt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

229 nfection of mice with Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain results in evident MAIT cell expansi

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

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

232 The Type B live vaccine strain was also 50% less capable of initiat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

248 compared with infection with the attenuated live vaccine strain.

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

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

251 several weeks following immunization with a live vaccine strain.

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

253 tracellular bacterium Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain.

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

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

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

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

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

259 veloped assays enable the differentiation of live vaccine strains by targeting two or three markers/v

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

268 lso underscores the challenge of utilizing a live vaccine strategy against tularemia and the necessit

269 ulosis infection and may affect responses to live vaccines, such as BCG.

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

271 Unlike live vaccines, tetravalent DENV envelope (E) protein sub

272 s made famous by being the virus used in the live vaccine that enabled this feat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 Live vaccine virus was necessary for induction of immuni

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

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

289 Eligibility for live vaccine was determined by individual US pediatric s

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

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

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

293 These live vaccines were created by transforming DeltaANR and

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

295 sting data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United St

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

297 screening approaches can guide the design of live vaccines with strong immunostimulatory properties.I

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

299 ction due to guidelines recommending against live vaccines within 4 weeks pretransplant.

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