Chapter title |
Methods for the Quality Control of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccines.
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 15 |
Book title |
Poliovirus
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3292-4_15 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3291-7, 978-1-4939-3292-4
|
Authors |
Wilton, Thomas, Thomas Wilton |
Abstract |
Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) plays an instrumental role in the Global Poliovirus Eradication Initiative (GPEI). The quality of IPV is controlled by assessment of the potency of vaccine batches. The potency of IPV can be assessed by both in vivo and in vitro methods. In vitro potency assessment is based upon the assessment of the quantity of the D-Antigen (D-Ag) units in an IPV. The D-Ag unit is used as a measure of potency as it is largely expressed on native infectious virions and is the protective immunogen. The most commonly used in vitro test is the indirect ELISA which is used to ensure consistency throughout production.A range of in vivo assays have been developed in monkeys, chicks, guinea pigs, mice, and rats to assess the potency of IPV. All are based on assessment of the neutralizing antibody titer within the sera of the respective animal model. The rat potency test has become the favored in vivo potency test as it shows minimal variation between laboratories and the antibody patterns of rats and humans are similar. With the development of transgenic mice expressing the human poliovirus receptor, immunization-challenge tests have been developed to assess the potency of IPVs. This chapter describes in detail the methodology of these three laboratory tests to assess the quality of IPVs. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 5 | 42% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
Other | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 25% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 17% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
Other | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 2 | 17% |