91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploitation of Neisseria meningitidis Group B OMV Vaccines Against N. gonorrhoeae to Inform the Development and Deployment of Effective Gonorrhea Vaccines

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Have potential clues to an effective gonorrhea vaccine been lurking in international disease surveillance data for decades? While no clinically effective vaccines against gonorrhea have been developed we present direct and indirect evidence that a vaccine is not only possible, but may already exist. Experience from Cuba, New Zealand, and Canada suggest that vaccines containing Group B Neisseria meningitides outer membrane vesicles (OMV) developed to control type-specific meningococcal disease may also prevent a significant proportion of gonorrhea. The mechanisms for this phenomenon have not yet been elucidated but we present some strategies for unraveling potential cross protective antigens and effector immune responses by exploiting stored sera from clinical trials and individuals primed with a meningococcal group B OMV vaccine (MeNZB). Elucidating these will contribute to the ongoing development of high efficacy vaccine options for gonorrhea. While the vaccine used in New Zealand, where the strongest empirical evidence has been gathered, is no longer available, the OMV has been included in the multi component recombinant meningococcal vaccine 4CMenB (Bexsero) which is now licensed and used in numerous countries. Several lines of evidence suggest it has the potential to affect gonorrhea prevalence. A vaccine to control gonorrhea does not need to be perfect and modeling supports that even a moderately efficacious vaccine could make a significant impact in disease prevalence. How might we use an off the shelf vaccine to reduce the burden of gonorrhea? What are some of the potential societal barriers in a world where vaccine hesitancy is growing? We summarize the evidence and consider some of the remaining questions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references103

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

          Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content. Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity. Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ 2 (1) = 102.0; P  < .001), sophisticated bots (χ 2 (1) = 28.6; P  < .001), and “content polluters” (χ 2 (1) = 7.0; P  < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ 2 (1) = 11.18; P  < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ 2 (1) = 12.1; P  < .001) and antivaccine (χ 2 (1) = 35.9; P  < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive. Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination. Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            HPV vaccines – A review of the first decade

            Pre-adolescent girls (9-15years) have the option of receiving a two dose HPV vaccine series at either a six month or one year interval to provide protection from HPV 16, the most prevalent type associated with cervical cancers, as well as several other less prevalent types. This series of vaccinations is highly likely to protect her from HPV infection until she enters the routine screening program, whether that be primary HPV testing or a combination of HPV testing and cytology. The two dose program has been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2015. For women 15years and older, the three dose vaccine schedule is still recommended. The past ten years of Gardasil use has provided evidence of reduced HPV 16/18 infections in countries where there has been high coverage. Gardasil9 has replaced Gardasil. Gardasil9 has the same rapid anti-HPV 18 and HPV45 titer loss as Gardasil did. Cervarix remains equivalent to Gardasil9 in the prevention of HPV infections and precancers of any HPV type; Cervarix also has demonstrated sustained high antibody titers for at least 10years. One dose of Cervarix provides protection against HPV 16/18 infection with robust antibody titers well above natural infection titers. This may offer the easiest and most cost effective vaccination program over time, especially in low and lower middle income countries. Cervical cancer screening must continue to control cancer incidence over the upcoming decades. Future studies of prophylactic HPV vaccines, as defined by the WHO, must demonstrate protection against six month type specific persistent infections, not actual cervical cancer precursor disease endpoints, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3) or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). This simplifies and makes less expensive future comparative studies between existing and new generic vaccines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nomenclature for immune correlates of protection after vaccination.

              Identification of immune correlates of protection after vaccination is an important part of vaccinology for both theoretical and practical reasons. The terminology and definition of correlates have been confusing, because different authors have used variable terms and concepts. Here, we attempt to give precision to the field by defining 3 terms: correlate of protection (CoP), mechanistic correlate of protection (mCoP), and nonmechanistic correlate of protection (nCoP). A CoP is a marker of immune function that statistically correlates with protection after vaccination that may be either an mCoP, which is a mechanistic cause of protection, or an nCoP, which does not cause protection but nevertheless predicts protection through its (partial) correlation with another immune response(s) that mechanistically protects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Immunol
                Front Immunol
                Front. Immunol.
                Frontiers in Immunology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-3224
                09 April 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 683
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                [2] 2Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                Author notes

                Edited by: Michael W. Russell, University at Buffalo, United States

                Reviewed by: Marcia Metzgar Hobbs, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States; Margaret Bash, United States Food and Drug Administration, United States

                *Correspondence: Helen Petousis-Harris h.petousis-harris@ 123456auckland.ac.nz

                This article was submitted to Microbial Immunology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fimmu.2019.00683
                6465565
                31024540
                fe07142c-d76a-46b2-960a-4a90a9893ff6
                Copyright © 2019 Petousis-Harris and Radcliff.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 August 2018
                : 13 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 120, Pages: 11, Words: 9545
                Categories
                Immunology
                Review

                Immunology
                gonorrhea,omv vaccine,menzb,neisseria meningitides,neisseria gonorrhoeae
                Immunology
                gonorrhea, omv vaccine, menzb, neisseria meningitides, neisseria gonorrhoeae

                Comments

                Comment on this article