Split (1)

train · 1.34k rows

document_id int32 185 2.68k	question stringlengths 11 194	id int32 225 5.32k	answers listlengths 1 1	chunks listlengths 5 52	correct_chunks listlengths 0 1	num_words int64 404 5.47k	num_tokens int64 652 7.87k
2,459	What is the conclusion of this report?	3,616	[ "More studies are needed to explore this possibility and resolve the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should emphasize that, although SARS-CoV-2 shows no evidence of laboratory origin, viruses with such great public health threats must be handled properly in the laboratory and also properly regulated by the scientific community and governments." ]	[ "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054935/\n\nSHA: 5a9154aee79901dd8fecd58b7bcd9b7351102d24\n\nAuthors: Liu, Shan-Lu; Saif, Linda J.; Weiss, Susan R.; Su, Lishan\nDate: 2020-02-26\nDOI: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: nan\n\nText: The emergence and outbreak of a newly discovered acute respiratory disease in Wuhan, China, has affected greater than 40,000 people, and killed more than 1,000 as of Feb. 10, 2020. A new human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was quickly identified, and the associated disease is now referred to as coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) (https://globalbiodefense. com/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-portal/).", "According to what has been reported [1] [2] [3] , COVID-2019 seems to have similar clinical manifestations to that of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence also has ∼80% identity with SARS-CoV, but it is most similar to some bat beta-coronaviruses, with the highest being >96% identity [4, 5] .", "Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared ∼96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4] . However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARSlike CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6] . Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS-CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4] , which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS-CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that", "SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. A search for an intermediate animal host between bats and humans is needed to identify animal CoVs more closely related to human SARS-CoV-2. There is speculation that pangolins might carry CoVs closely related to SARS-CoV-2, but the data to substantiate this is not yet published (https:// www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2).", "Another claim in Chinese social media points to a Nature Medicine paper published in 2015 [7] , which reports the construction of a chimeric CoV with a bat CoV S gene (SHC014) in the backbone of a SARS CoV that has adapted to infect mice (MA15) and is capable of infecting human cells [8] . However, this claim lacks any scientific basis and must be discounted because of significant divergence in the genetic sequence of this construct with the new SARS-CoV-2 (>5,000 nucleotides).\n\nThe mouse-adapted SARS virus (MA15) [9] was generated by serial passage of an infectious wildtype SARS CoV clone in the respiratory tract of BALB/c mice. After 15 passages in mice, the SARS-CoV gained elevated replication and lung pathogenesis in aged mice (hence M15), due to six coding genetic mutations associated with mouse adaptation. It is likely that MA15 is highly attenuated to replicate in human cells or patients due to the mouse adaptation.", "It was proposed that the S gene from bat-derived CoV, unlike that from human patients-or civetsderived viruses, was unable to use human ACE2 as a receptor for entry into human cells [10, 11] . Civets were proposed to be an intermediate host of the bat-CoVs, capable of spreading SARS CoV to humans [6, 12] . However, in 2013 several novel bat coronaviruses were isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats and the bat SARS-like or SL-CoV-WIV1 was able to use ACE2 from humans, civets and Chinese horseshoe bats for entry [8] . Combined with evolutionary evidence that the bat ACE2 gene has been positively selected at the same contact sites as the human ACE2 gene for interacting with SARS CoV [13] , it was proposed that an intermediate host may not be necessary and that some bat SL-CoVs may be able to directly infect human hosts. To directly address this possibility, the exact S gene from bat coronavirus SL-SHC014 was synthesized and used to generate a chimeric virus in the mouse adapted MA15", "SARS-CoV backbone. The resultant SL-SHC014-MA15 virus could indeed efficiently use human ACE2 and replicate in primary human airway cells to similar titres as epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. While SL-SHC014-MA15 can replicate efficiently in young and aged mouse lungs, infection was attenuated, and less virus antigen was present in the airway epithelium as compared to SARS MA15, which causes lethal outcomes in aged mice [7] .", "Due to the elevated pathogenic activity of the SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus relative to MA15 chimeric virus with the original human SARS S gene in mice, such experiments with SL-SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus were later restricted as gain of function (GOF) studies under the US government-mandated pause policy (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-weare/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pausegain-function-research). The current COVID-2019 epidemic has restarted the debate over the risks of constructing such viruses that could have pandemic potential, irrespective of the finding that these bat CoVs already exist in nature. Regardless, upon careful phylogenetic analyses by multiple international groups [5, 14] , the SARS-CoV-2 is undoubtedly distinct from SL-SHC014-MA15, with >6,000 nucleotide differences across the whole genome. Therefore, once again there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 is derived from the chimeric SL-SHC014-MA15 virus.", "There are also rumours that the SARS-CoV-2 was artificially, or intentionally, made by humans in the lab, and this is highlighted in one manuscript submitted to BioRxiv (a manuscript sharing site prior to any peer review), claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has HIV sequence in it and was thus likely generated in the laboratory. In a rebuttal paper led by an HIV-1 virologist Dr. Feng Gao, they used careful bioinformatics analyses to demonstrate that the original claim of multiple HIV insertions into the SARS-CoV-2 is not HIV-1 specific but random [15] . Because of the many concerns raised by the international community, the authors who made the initial claim have already withdrawn this report.", "Evolution is stepwise and accrues mutations gradually over time, whereas synthetic constructs would typically use a known backbone and introduce logical or targeted changes instead of the randomly occurring mutations that are present in naturally isolated viruses such as bat CoV RaTG13. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host. More studies are needed to explore this possibility and resolve the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should emphasize that, although SARS-CoV-2 shows no evidence of laboratory origin, viruses with such great public health threats must be handled properly in the laboratory and also properly regulated by the scientific community and governments.\n\nNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).", "Susan R. Weiss http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-4528" ]	[ 9 ]	1,120	1,784
2,459	what is the clinical manifestation similar to?	4,574	[ "to that of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV." ]	[ "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054935/\n\nSHA: 5a9154aee79901dd8fecd58b7bcd9b7351102d24\n\nAuthors: Liu, Shan-Lu; Saif, Linda J.; Weiss, Susan R.; Su, Lishan\nDate: 2020-02-26\nDOI: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: nan\n\nText: The emergence and outbreak of a newly discovered acute respiratory disease in Wuhan, China, has affected greater than 40,000 people, and killed more than 1,000 as of Feb. 10, 2020. A new human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was quickly identified, and the associated disease is now referred to as coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) (https://globalbiodefense. com/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-portal/).", "According to what has been reported [1] [2] [3] , COVID-2019 seems to have similar clinical manifestations to that of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence also has ∼80% identity with SARS-CoV, but it is most similar to some bat beta-coronaviruses, with the highest being >96% identity [4, 5] .", "Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared ∼96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4] . However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARSlike CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6] . Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS-CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4] , which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS-CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that", "SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. A search for an intermediate animal host between bats and humans is needed to identify animal CoVs more closely related to human SARS-CoV-2. There is speculation that pangolins might carry CoVs closely related to SARS-CoV-2, but the data to substantiate this is not yet published (https:// www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2).", "Another claim in Chinese social media points to a Nature Medicine paper published in 2015 [7] , which reports the construction of a chimeric CoV with a bat CoV S gene (SHC014) in the backbone of a SARS CoV that has adapted to infect mice (MA15) and is capable of infecting human cells [8] . However, this claim lacks any scientific basis and must be discounted because of significant divergence in the genetic sequence of this construct with the new SARS-CoV-2 (>5,000 nucleotides).\n\nThe mouse-adapted SARS virus (MA15) [9] was generated by serial passage of an infectious wildtype SARS CoV clone in the respiratory tract of BALB/c mice. After 15 passages in mice, the SARS-CoV gained elevated replication and lung pathogenesis in aged mice (hence M15), due to six coding genetic mutations associated with mouse adaptation. It is likely that MA15 is highly attenuated to replicate in human cells or patients due to the mouse adaptation.", "It was proposed that the S gene from bat-derived CoV, unlike that from human patients-or civetsderived viruses, was unable to use human ACE2 as a receptor for entry into human cells [10, 11] . Civets were proposed to be an intermediate host of the bat-CoVs, capable of spreading SARS CoV to humans [6, 12] . However, in 2013 several novel bat coronaviruses were isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats and the bat SARS-like or SL-CoV-WIV1 was able to use ACE2 from humans, civets and Chinese horseshoe bats for entry [8] . Combined with evolutionary evidence that the bat ACE2 gene has been positively selected at the same contact sites as the human ACE2 gene for interacting with SARS CoV [13] , it was proposed that an intermediate host may not be necessary and that some bat SL-CoVs may be able to directly infect human hosts. To directly address this possibility, the exact S gene from bat coronavirus SL-SHC014 was synthesized and used to generate a chimeric virus in the mouse adapted MA15", "SARS-CoV backbone. The resultant SL-SHC014-MA15 virus could indeed efficiently use human ACE2 and replicate in primary human airway cells to similar titres as epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. While SL-SHC014-MA15 can replicate efficiently in young and aged mouse lungs, infection was attenuated, and less virus antigen was present in the airway epithelium as compared to SARS MA15, which causes lethal outcomes in aged mice [7] .", "Due to the elevated pathogenic activity of the SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus relative to MA15 chimeric virus with the original human SARS S gene in mice, such experiments with SL-SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus were later restricted as gain of function (GOF) studies under the US government-mandated pause policy (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-weare/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pausegain-function-research). The current COVID-2019 epidemic has restarted the debate over the risks of constructing such viruses that could have pandemic potential, irrespective of the finding that these bat CoVs already exist in nature. Regardless, upon careful phylogenetic analyses by multiple international groups [5, 14] , the SARS-CoV-2 is undoubtedly distinct from SL-SHC014-MA15, with >6,000 nucleotide differences across the whole genome. Therefore, once again there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 is derived from the chimeric SL-SHC014-MA15 virus.", "There are also rumours that the SARS-CoV-2 was artificially, or intentionally, made by humans in the lab, and this is highlighted in one manuscript submitted to BioRxiv (a manuscript sharing site prior to any peer review), claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has HIV sequence in it and was thus likely generated in the laboratory. In a rebuttal paper led by an HIV-1 virologist Dr. Feng Gao, they used careful bioinformatics analyses to demonstrate that the original claim of multiple HIV insertions into the SARS-CoV-2 is not HIV-1 specific but random [15] . Because of the many concerns raised by the international community, the authors who made the initial claim have already withdrawn this report.", "Evolution is stepwise and accrues mutations gradually over time, whereas synthetic constructs would typically use a known backbone and introduce logical or targeted changes instead of the randomly occurring mutations that are present in naturally isolated viruses such as bat CoV RaTG13. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host. More studies are needed to explore this possibility and resolve the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should emphasize that, although SARS-CoV-2 shows no evidence of laboratory origin, viruses with such great public health threats must be handled properly in the laboratory and also properly regulated by the scientific community and governments.\n\nNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).", "Susan R. Weiss http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-4528" ]	[ 1 ]	1,120	1,784
1,645	What are examples of delivery vectors for commercial anti-Salmonella vaccines?	809	[ "Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 4 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What can be a factor in using common vectors for the delivery of vaccines?	798	[ "commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 1 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	Is a pre-existing immune response to commonly used delivery vector an advantage or a disadvantage?	800	[ "for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 1 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What bacterial delivery vectors have been tested in animal hosts?	802	[ "attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 2 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	Which bacteial delivery vectors have gained favor for vaccines?	804	[ "Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 2 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	Why are E Coli and lactic acid are safe choices as delivery vectors for vaccines?	805	[ "E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is Listeria?	812	[ "Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 5 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the advantage of Listeria as a delivery vector for vaccines?	813	[ "The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 5 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are examples of viral vectors for delivering vaccines?	817	[ "recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus]" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 6 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	Which viral vaccine delivery vector was first licensed?	825	[ "YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 7 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are examples of attenuated poxvirus vaccine delivery vectors?	831	[ "modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 7 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the connection between chicken and Salmonella?	872	[ "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 22 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	Why are some poxvirus ideally suited as vaccine delivery vectors?	833	[ "They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 7 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the advantage of adenovirus as vaccine delivery vector?	836	[ "adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are important criteria for selecting vaccine delivery vectors?	838	[ "a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 9 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are important criteria for selecting vaccine delivery vectors?	841	[ "Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 9 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are important criteria for selecting vaccine delivery vectors?	845	[ "long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 9 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What happens when a recipient of a vaccine has immune response to the delivery vector?	858	[ "considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response)" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 10 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the effect of host immune response to the delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?	864	[ "for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 11 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the effect of host immune response to the delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?	861	[ "theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 10 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is an example of the effect of immunity to the delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?	870	[ "mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 19 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the effect of host immune response to viral delivery vectors in the efficacy of vaccination?	874	[ "pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively]" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 27 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the effect of host immune response to the viral delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?	875	[ "Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 27 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What is the effect of host immune response to the delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?	876	[ "In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 27 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are methods to avoid the effect vector immunity on the efficacy of vaccination?	877	[ "the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006)" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 29 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	What are methods to avoid the effect of vector immune response on the efficacy of vaccination?	878	[ "The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) ." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 29 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	How does cell-mediated immunity to viral delivery vector, reduce the immune response to vaccine?	879	[ "this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes" ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[ 35 ]	4,555	6,324
1,645	How can vectors for which host has immunity, be used differently to increase the efficacy of vaccination?	880	[ "it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.\n\nIn addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response." ]	[ "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/\n\nSHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c\n\nAuthors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.\nDate: 2013-01-27\nDOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.", "Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the", "host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology", "and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested", "for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .", "Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &", "Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated", "vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) .", "However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) .", "As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can", "have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.", "In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice", "without any immunological memory against the vector.", "Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 .\n\nThe various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) .", "A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related", "species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 .", "Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic", "Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization,", "the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated.", "Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced.", "It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) .", "Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1.", "Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains", "(Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed.", "Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector", "in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations.", "Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1", "immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 .", "There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .", "As we search for new vaccine approaches for the array of pathogens for which none is yet available, revisiting proven vaccines and developing these further has gained M. Saxena and others momentum. Hence, attenuated bacteria and viruses which have a long history of efficacy and safety are being brought into use. While very attractive, a common theme in these experimental approaches has been the limitations that preexisting immunity to the vector may pose. However, as this examination of the relevant literature shows, there is a rather confusing picture, with some studies in fact indicating that pre-existing immunity may be a friend, rather than foe.", "Few studies using viral vectors have reported on the influence of pre-existing immunity on humoral responses. Generally speaking, for bacterial-delivered antigens, the humoral responses were influenced by pre-existing immunity, with slightly more studies finding augmentation rather than diminution. Why is there variation? This may be due to several factors, including the type of Salmonella used and its invasiveness. Dunstan and colleagues tested the ability of six isogenic Salmonella serovar Typhimurium strains harbouring different mutations for their ability to induce immune responses against the C fragment of tetanus toxin and concluded that the strain which had the least ability to colonize Peyer's patches induced the lowest immune responses (Dunstan et al., 1998) .", "Similarly, the boosting time and nature of the antigen used might be important. Attridge and colleagues indicated the importance of boosting time. In one experiment, boosting mice at 10 weeks led to complete inhibition of antibody responses against the delivered heterologous antigen; however, when the mice were boosted at 4 weeks, the downregulation of antibody responses was not so prominent (Attridge et al., 1997) . A similar study conducted by Kohlers and colleagues shows that boosting at 7 weeks after pre-exposing animals to empty vector leads to lower antigen-specific IgG and secretory IgA responses; however, boosting at 14 weeks leads to higher IgG and secretory IgA responses (Kohler et al., 2000b) . This is in conflict with the above result, although it should be mentioned that they used different Salmonella species. Vindurampulle and Attridge also examined the impact of the Salmonella strain and the nature of the antigens used. In their study, they used S. Dublin and Salmonella", "Stanley aroA mutants to deliver E. coli K88 and LT-B antigens, and concluded that the effect of pre-existing immunity depends on both the strain used and the type of antigen delivered (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) .", "All these studies on the effect of pre-existing immunity discuss the impact on humoral responses. Sevil Domenech and colleagues reported that pre-exposing animals to the homologous Salmonella vector leads to a significant reduction in CD8 + responses; however, exposure of animals to a heterologous strain leads to significantly higher CD8 + responses (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007 , 2008 . Saxena and colleagues also reported that antigenspecific T cell responses were either similar or significantly higher, with no downregulation in T cell responses observed after pre-exposing mice to either homologous or heterologous strains (Saxena et al., 2009) .", "For viral vectors, the impact of cell-mediated immunity was more pronounced, and as depicted in Table 2 , almost always resulted in a reduction in the subsequent immune response. Presumably this is because viruses will induce neutralizing antibody on the first dose, and in subsequent doses this antibody will limit the number of transduced cells, therefore limiting the responses. This is particularly a problem with a common viral vector such as Ad, where a large proportion of the population will have immunological memory against common serotypes (Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) . As these authors conclude, it will be possible to utilize such vectors only by developing vaccines from alternative serotypes. It may be that a vector such as Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors attenuated influenza virus, with the ability to easily develop reassortants, will be useful in this context.", "In addition, immunological memory in the form of opsonizing antibody certainly plays an important role in the early uptake of Salmonella by macrophages and DC. This may be beneficial, as the live bacterial vector used for delivery purposes harbours mutations in genes encoding proteins responsible for their survival in the animal host. This not only encumbers their ability to cause disease, making them safe live vectors, but also limits the number of replications. The presence of opsonizing antibodies should mean a higher level of bacterial uptake, leading to higher presentation to the immune system and therefore a better immune response. We have previously shown that this is indeed the case (Saxena et al., 2009 ) (depicted in Fig. 2 ). It would be of great benefit to address these issues not only in mice but also in other organisms such as chickens, which are the most likely host to be targeted for the use of live Salmonella vectors, specifically where the vaccines are developed for", "use in livestock and poultry.", "To summarize, bacterial vectors such as Salmonella and viral vectors such as Ad show great promise as delivery vehicles for heterologous antigens; however, prior exposure to the vector must be considered. By judicious selection of the strain/serotype it will be possible to avoid the negative effects and it may indeed be possible to positively influence the response, particularly for humoral immunity." ]	[]	4,555	6,324
2,461	How does the PED virus transmit between animals?	601	[ "fecal–oral contact" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 1 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	How can Bacilius subtilis be used as an oral vaccine?	602	[ "recombinant vaccine carrier" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 1 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What cells are infected by the PED virus?	603	[ "intestine epithelial cells" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 3 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What kind of immune responses are most effective in preventing PED virus?	604	[ "mucosal" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 1 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What intestinal factors may reduce the effectiveness of orally-administered immunizations?	605	[ "gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 5 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What is Bacillus subtilis?	606	[ "Gram-positive bacterium" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 7 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What is the role of dendritic cells in the immune response?	607	[ "antigen-presenting cells" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 7 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	Where do dendritic cells exist in the body?	608	[ "gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT)" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 7 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What are the components of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue?	609	[ "Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 7 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What type of cells form the intestinal mucosal barrier?	610	[ "lymphoid cells" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 20 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What factors determine an effective mucosal immune response?	611	[ "serum IgG and mucosal SIgA" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 27 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What is an effective indicator of a vaccine's ability to generate an immune response?	612	[ "cytokines" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 25 ]	3,483	5,091
2,461	What is interleukin-1Beta?	613	[ "pro-inflammatory cytokines" ]	[ "Mucosal immune responses induced by oral administration recombinant Bacillus subtilis expressing the COE antigen of PEDV in newborn piglets\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6418403/\n\nSHA: 5caced13bcb8a42cca41369c5a71ae7df5381ca8\n\nAuthors: Wang, Jialu; Huang, Lulu; Mou, Chunxiao; Zhang, En; Wang, Yongheng; Cao, Yanan; Yang, Qian\nDate: 2019-03-15\nDOI: 10.1042/bsr20182028\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious disease in newborn piglets and causes substantial economic losses in the world. PED virus (PEDV) spreads by fecal–oral contact and can be prevented by oral immunization. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective oral vaccine against PEDV infection. Currently, Bacillus subtilis as recombinant vaccine carrier has been used for antigen delivery and proved well in immune effect and safety. The present study evaluated the immunogenicity of recombinant Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) in piglets via oral administration. After oral immunization in piglets, B. subtilis-RC significantly increased the local mucosal immune responses. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly improved the level of specific mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against PEDV infection, through enlarging the area of Peyer’s patches (PPs) and increasing the number of ileum IgA(+) secreting (SIgA) cells. In the meantime, B.", "subtilis-RC remarkably increased the number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). We also observed that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC significantly increased CD3(+)T lymphocytes’ numbers and up-regulated the ratio of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cells. Furthermore, high titers of specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) revealed satisfactory systemic immune response against PEDV infection. In summary, our study demonstrated that oral administration of B. subtilis-RC could trigger a high level of local and systemic immune responses and would be a promising candidate vaccine against PEDV infection in piglets.", "Text: Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) characterized by highly fatal acute diarrhea in piglets, results in enormous losses in the worldwide pig industry [1] . The causative agent PED virus (PEDV) belongs to the porcine coronaviruses (CoVs). PEDV infection mainly spreads through the digestive tract [2] , and damages the host intestine mucosal surfaces by infecting the intestine epithelial cells [3] . Therfore enhancing intestinal mucosal immunity can elicit effective mucosal immune responses against PEDV infection [4] . Currently, traditional vaccines (intramuscular route or subcutaneous injection) have been developed and applied widely in the market [5] . These vaccines administered parenterally cannot effectively induce high titers of maternal antibodies and virus-specific IgA antibodies, resulting in inadequate mucosal protection to against PEDV infection [6] . Furthermore, these maternal antibodies in the milk were always degraded by gastric acid and pepsin before entering the", "intestinal tract. Effective PEDV vaccines must provide adequate mucosal protection in the intestinal tract. However, the effective vaccines are currently lacking [7] .", "As a superior way of mucosal immunization, oral administration can protect the gut and stimulate the common mucosal immune system [8] . Besides, oral immunization has several attractive features which include safety, and a straightforward, inexpensive, and needle-free approach [9] . Therefore, oral immunization often delivers large amounts of antigens to prevent the diarrheal diseases [10] . Nevertheless, there are several challenges by oral immunization, which consist of physical, chemical, and biological barriers when delivering antigens to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (such as gastric acids, pepsin, and trypsin in the GI tract) [11] .", "It is a substantial problem that digestive acids and proteases can degrade antigen proteins for nutrient absorption [12] . Therefore, the vaccine delivery system has been applied to solve the problem. The system can protect antigens from the severe environment of the GI tract and deliver antigens to intestinal mucosa [13] . Currently, Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is widely used as a vaccine delivery system for its unique characteristics.", "As a nonpathogenic Gram-positive bacterium, B. subtilis has been regarded as a novel probiotic and food additive in humans and animals [14] . The B. subtilis has adjuvant activity and can deliver heterologous antigens to the GI tract, providing additional immunity stimulation [15] . Besides, research had shown that orally administered B. subtilis could also enhance immune regulation and gut health in pigs [16] . Moreover, oral administration of B. subtilis could elicit humoral and cellular immune responses to the maintenance of gut homeostasis by dendritic cells (DCs) [17] . DCs are the most important professional antigen-presenting cells and can effectively regulate antibody titers [18] . DCs naturally exist in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), including Peyer's patches (PPs), isolated lymphoid follicles (ILFs), mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs), and scatter throughout the subepithelial lamina propria (LP) of the small intestine and colon [19] . Furthermore, B. subtilis is", "convenient for genetic manipulation and has developed a large variety of genetic tools [20] . Therefore, B. subtilis is widely used as an effective vaccine delivery system to induce mucosal immune responses and shows unique effect on the immune system.", "In the present report, we explored the immune effect of a recombinant B. subtilis (B. subtilis-RC) which had been successfully constructed with expressing PEDV COE protein in piglets. Our research indicated that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to the mucosal immune system development, and could effectively generate specific antibodies against PEDV infection, suggesting a potential approach for preventing PEDV infection.", "The B. subtilis WB800 was kindly provided by Dr. Xuewen Gao (from the department of plant pathology, Nanjing Agricultural University) [21] . B. subtilis-RC previously constructed in our laboratory was able to express the gene COE (499-638 amino acids in S protein). Prior to oral administration, the recombinant strain was grown in LB broth at 37 • C for 12 h, and then washed twice with PBS, and suspended in PBS to reach a final concentration of 1 × 10 10 CFU/ml. The PEDV Zhejiang08 strain was provided by the Veterinary Medicine Research Centre of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. [22] . The virus was cultured in African green monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) and purified by using a discontinuous sucrose density gradient. The virus was UV-inactivated at UV dose of 4 J/cm 2 for 24 h to achieve a complete loss of infectivity [23] . The purified virus concentration was measured using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher, MA, U.S.A.). ELISA: Rabbit anti-pig IgG", "(horseradish peroxidase (HRP)), Goat Anti-Pig IgA (HRP) were purchased from Abcam. Second antibody: DyLight 649-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody, DyLight 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, DyLight 594-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody were purchased from Multi-science, Hangzhou, China. ABC-based system (biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody) was used as the secondary antibody with DAB as a chromogen was purchased from Boster, Wuhan, China.", "Specific pathogen-free (SPF) DLY piglets (Duroc and Landrace and Yorkshire) were kindly provided by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Nanjing, China). The animal experiments had been approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Nanjing Agricultural University and followed the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the performance of animal experiments. Twelve newborn piglets were randomly divided into three groups (four piglets in each group), and housed under similar conditions in different stables in order to avoid probiotic cross-contamination. The piglets were orally dosed with 100 μl of B. subtilis-RC. The control groups of piglets were orally administered with inactivated PEDV (100 μg/dose) and equal volume of PBS. The immunization protocol was performed on the piglets that were 5 days old ( Figure 1C ), and signed as 0 day. Then booster immunizations were administered on 5 days.", "Specimen collection was then performed every 7 days post boost immunization ( Figure 1C ). Blood samples were collected weekly from all piglets after the boost immunization and allowed to clot overnight at room temperature to collect serum. Blood samples were separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 • C in order to detect the levels of specific IgG and IgA. Three swabs were collected every week lasting for 1 month, including nasal, oral, and feces swabs for the ELISA. The piglets were sacrificed in 33 days. The same location of the small intestine and ileum tissues from each piglet were fixed with Bonn's liquid and 4% paraformaldehyde.", "The small intestine tissues in same location were fixed with Bouin Fixative Solution for 24 h, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned at 4-μm thickness. The sections were placed on glass slides. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was applied to the paraffin sections, then observing and taking photographs under optical microscope (OLYMPUS CX23). The number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) were counted in every 100 epithelial cells under the same multiple light microscope amongst ten pictures from each group [24] .", "The immunohistochemistry detection was performed with the SABC kit (Boster Bioscience). Hydrogen peroxide was used to deactivate intrinsic peroxidase. Antigen retrieval was performed in a water bath using citrate-EDTA buffer (10 mM citric acid, 2 mM EDTA, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 6.2). Sections were incubated with diluted anti-IgA antibody (1:100; Abcam) overnight at 4 • C. As negative controls, immunostaining performed by incubating samples with control antiserum instead of primary antibody. The addition of biotin-labeled secondary antibody to the slides was followed by adding HRP-labeled streptavidin. After staining with DAB, the slides were recorded using a digital camera (Leica-DM4000B) [25] .", "The isolated intestines with PPs were transferred to ice-cold PBS. Then, remaining fat and connective tissue was removed and washed thoroughly with ice-cold PBS. Next, the intestine was cut longitudinally into 0.5-cm fragments. The fragments were incubated with 5 ml of 30 mM EDTA and placed in 5 ml digestion solution containing 4% FBS, 0.5 mg/ml each of Collagenase D (Roche) and DNase I (Sigma), and 50 U/ml Dispase (Fisher). The fragments were incubated with Dulbecco's PBS (DPBS) for 20 min at 37 • C by slow rotation (100 rpm). After incubating, the epithelial cells layer which contained the IELs were separated by intensive vortex and passed through a 70-μm cell strainer. Single cell suspension was collected and washed twice by DPBS, the solution was vortexed intensely and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Supernatants was washed by precooled RPMI medium 1640 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and suspended by 10 ml of the 40% fraction of a 40:80 Percoll gradient, overlaid on 5 ml of the", "80% fraction in a 15-ml Falcon tube. Percoll gradient separation was performed by centrifuging for 20 min at 2500 rpm. LP lymphocytes (LPLs) were collected at the interphase of the Percoll gradient, then washed and suspended in FACS buffer or T cell medium. In the meantime, flow cytometry analysis was performed on BD Facscalibur (BD Biosciences) instruments and analyzed by FlowJo software. All antibodies were purchased from BD Pharmingen or eBiosciences. Isolated single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD3-APC, anti-CD4-FITC, anti-CD8-PE, all at 1:100 dilution for 30 min on ice, and washed with PBS twice, and analyzed by FACS [26] .", "Cytokines interleukin (IL) 10 (IL-10) and IL-1β (Abcam) were measured by ELISA according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data were acquired on an automated ELISA plate reader at OD 450 nm immediately.\n\nPEDV neutralizing antibodies were measured in intestine washing liquid by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The test was performed as previously described with minor modifications [27] . A total of 450 μl of intestine washing liquid was two-fold serially diluted and mixed with 50 μl viral suspension containing 10 3 TCID 50 PEDV virus for 1 h at 37 • C in 12-well flat bottomed tissue culture plates. The mixture was then inoculated for 1 h at 37 • C and 5% CO 2 . Then, the mixture was inoculated with Vero cells suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10 6 ml −1 ) for another 3-4 days. After staining with Crystal Violet, the plates were observed under a microscope for cytopathic effect.", "Data were obtained as the means + − S.E.M. of three replicates per test in a single experiment. GraphPad Prism V6.0 (San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) used to perform statistical analyses. Tukey's multiple comparison tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the difference between means. P-values less than 0.05 (P<0.05) were considered significant and P-values less than 0.01 (P<0.01) as highly significant.", "PPs are a concentrate of lymphoid tissue and the primary site for immunoglobulin A (IgA) production which is crucial to regulate the homeostatic balance of intestine [28] . The area of PPs is a key immunity indicator. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC significantly (P<0.01) increased the area of PPs compared with two control groups as shown in Figure 1A . In addition, the villi length of ileum got longer by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC (P<0.01) than the other two groups ( Figure 1B) . These primarily confirmed that B. subtilis-RC was beneficial to maintain the structure of intestine.\n\nIntestinal IELs are a large and diverse population of lymphoid cells residing within the intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and forming the intestinal mucosal barrier [29] . IELs are important part of the gut mucosal immune system.", "The level of specific anti-PEDV ileum IgA + secreting (SIgA) antibody in piglets was measured by ELISA in the mouth and feces. As shown in Figure 3A ,B, antigen-specific mucosal SIgA in the above sites was clearly higher than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). As expected, the mouth had higher levels of SIgA than other sites. After oral immunization, the level of serum anti-PEDV IgG antibody in piglets immunized with B. subtilis-RC, inactivated PEDV or PBS were determined by ELISA, as shown in Figure 3C . The results indicated that although the titers dropped during sampling period, the IgG level of B. subtilis-RC still significantly increased from 0 to 33 days than inactivated PEDV group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).", "CD3 + T lymphocytes are the fundamental cell surface markers of T lymphocytes, therefore, the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes could represent the quantity of T lymphocytes. Consequently, we analyzed the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes in ileum. The data indicated that both B. subtilis-RC and inactivated PEDV could dramatically (P<0.05) increase CD3 + T lymphocytes compared with PBS group ( Figure 4A ). These changes showed confident evidence that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC had a good influence on intestinal mucosal immunity in piglets.", "SIgA is the main immunoglobulin isotype in animals, largely secreted across the intestinal mucosal surface especially in the small intestine [30] . SIgA plays an important role in intestinal mucosal immunity and reflects on the intestinal mucosal immunity. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, the number of IgA secreting cells had quickly risen compared with the other two groups (P<0.05) ( Figure 4B) . These results showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC was conducive to intestinal mucosal immunity and could increase the number of IgA secreting cells to produce positive effects on against PEDV infection.", "A great deal of immune cells are scattered in the epithelial cells. IECs indirectly or directly interact with innate and adaptive immune cells by presenting antigens to lymphocytes [31] . Consequently, learning about how the lymphocytes are distributed in the small intestinal mucosa is very meaningful for mucosal immunology. Previous data had shown that CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly (P<0.05) increased ( Figure 4A ), so we further analyzed the immunological classification of CD3 + T lymphocytes. The lymphocyte of the ileum with PPs junction was isolated and the lymphocytes of CD3, CD4, and CD8 were analyzed by three colors flow cytometry ( Figure 5A ). These results showed that CD3 + CD4 + T cells have obviously (P<0.01) increased ( Figure 5B ), nevertheless the CD3 + CD8 + T cells remarkably (P<0.05) declined ( Figure 5C ). After calculation, the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased ( Figure 5D ). This ratio could also further measure the immunity levels of piglets.", "Cytokine IL-1β and IL-10 levels were determined to evaluate cellular immune responses induced by B. subtilis-RC as shown in Figure 6A ,B. As we can see from the diagram, significantly (P<0.01) higher IL-1β and IL-10 were produced after oral administration with B. subtilis-RC than the other two groups. These all revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate cytokines release to mediate communication with and between cells of the immune system, improving the mucosal immune response to PEDV infection. \n\nThe PEDV neutralizing antibodies were detected by PRNT assay. Oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could effectively reduce the plaque-forming ability of PEDV (P<0.01) compared with other two groups in Figure 7 . This revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate high level of PEDV neutralizing antibodies against PEDV infection.", "Amidst the PEDV outbreak, various vaccines have been developed to control diseases and the effects are unsatisfactory. Oral vaccines can induce more robust mucosal immunity than injectable counterparts [32] . Therefore, oral immunization has appeared as an effective strategy for controlling PEDV outbreak [33] .", "It is now clear that effective mucosal immune response requires serum IgG and mucosal SIgA [34] . SIgA is the basis of the mucosal immune system, playing an important role in maintaining the immune homeostasis, and neutralizing the invasive pathogens. Serum IgG represents systemic immune responses. During PEDV infections, oral immunization elicits not only mucosal but also systemic immune responses very well [35] . Our data showed a strong and long-lasting anti-PEDV IgG response were detected by oral administration with B. subtilis-RC in piglets. Although as time went on, the antibody titers declined a little, it still stayed on overhead compared with control groups and with accordance to the changeable tendency of antibodies. The change of specific IgA showed similar results in mouth and feces mucosa. All these changes had contributed to fight PEDV infection. As the extra immunity boost, B. subtilis-RC reduced the ability of pathogens to cross the intestinal mucosa and the systemic", "spread of invasive pathogens [36] . The mucosal immune system generates immune responses through immune cells that reside in mucosal compartments. T lymphocytes residing in the mucosa play important roles in mucosal immunity [37] . We further explored the species, amounts, and distribution of T lymphocytes in the intestine mucosa. CD3 is a fundamental cell surface marker of T lymphocytes [38] . The result showed that the number of CD3 + T lymphocytes significantly increased, and these revealed that B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell maturation. According to the molecules expressed on the cell surface, T lymphocytes can further divide into T helper cells (CD4 + T cells) and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 + T cells) [39] . Furthermore, we observed that the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells increased by oral administration. The CD4/CD8 ratio measures the ratio of T helper cells to cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, we could see that oral administration B. subtilis-RC could strengthen Th1 immune", "response by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells.", "Small intestine morphology can directly reflect the intestinal health and plays an important role in maintaining the intestine immune system [40] . The early stage of PEDV infection is frequently accompanied by necrosis and exfoliation of infected villous epithelial cells, ultimately resulting in acute, severe villous atrophy [41] . Therefore, the effective work of maintaining intestine morphology is a good indicator for assessing the efficacy of vaccines. After oral administration with B. subtilis-RC, we found the area of PPs expanded significantly. PPs are small masses of lymphatic tissue and form an important part of the immune system by recruiting and inducting the T cells to prevent the growth of pathogens in the intestines. Furthermore, an increase in the number of IELs demonstrated the effectiveness of B. subtilis-RC. Moreover, the villi length of ileum showed some encouraging results that a well-formed intestine morphology came into being by B. subtilis-RC. The satisfactory", "intestine morphology was the first step on the road against PEDV infection. Several morphology results proved that B. subtilis-RC could remarkably maintain the intestine morphology and form comprehensive protection.", "As previously mentioned, oral administration with B. subtilis-RC could stimulate T-cell proliferation and differentiation and modulate the immune response. Moreover, cytokines are small-molecule proteins with wide biological activity, synthesized and secreted by immune cells and some non-immune cells [42] . As a cell signaling molecule, it mainly acts to regulate immune responses, participating in the differentiation and development of immune cells, mediating inflammatory responses, stimulating hematopoiesis, and participating in tissue repair. Previous studies had demonstrated that PEDV inhibited both NF-κB and pro-inflammatory cytokines [43] . Therefore, cytokines are a key indicator for evaluating the ability of a vaccine to stimulate immune responses. In this study, we had observed that IL-1β and IL-10 increased (P<0.01) remarkably. IL-1β as one of the earliest pro-inflammatory cytokines and is centrally involved in the initiation and regulation of inflammatory and innate immune", "responses. Research had shown that IL-1β could significantly up-regulate the local and systemic immune tissues post microbial infection [44] . In addition, IL-10 is a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine that plays an essential role in preventing inflammatory and autoimmune pathologies [45] . In summary, both data showed that oral administration with B. subtilis-RC regulated and enhanced immunity by up-regulating cytokines IL-1β and IL-10.", "In conclusion, the present results demonstrated that oral immunization with B. subtilis-RC could effectively induce local mucosal and systematic immune responses against PEDV infection, while enhancing and regulating the immune function by raising the ratio of CD4 + /CD8 + T cells and cytokines IL-1β and IL-10, thus pointing to a promising oral vaccine candidate for PEDV infection in piglets." ]	[ 32 ]	3,483	5,091
2,463	When was the first case of COVID-19 identified?	1,197	[ "Wuhan City, China" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	Where did SARS-CoV-2 originate?	1,199	[ "Wuhan City, China" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	In what year did the first SARS epidemic occur?	1,201	[ "rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 7 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	When was World Health Organization (WHO) first notified about the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Wuhan City, China?	1,202	[ "31 December" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	When did we discover that SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, was a novel coronavirus?	1,203	[ "26 January 2020" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	How long did it take to identify the cause of COVID-19?	1,204	[ "4 weeks" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What type of test was initially developed to screen for SARS-CoV-2?	1,205	[ "reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	How big was the temporary hospital built in Wuhan City for treatment of COVID-19 patients?	1,206	[ "1000 bed hospital" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	How long did it take China to build the temporary hospital in Wuhan for COVID-19 patients?	1,207	[ "10 days" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 1 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What is a key factor in managing emerging infectious disease threats?	1,208	[ "transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 7 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	In what year did the MERS epidemic occur?	1,209	[ "2012" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 7 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	How long did it take to publish the full genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 after it was identified?	1,210	[ "2 weeks" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 8 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What was the fatality rate for SARS-CoV?	1,211	[ "10%" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 9 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What was the fatality rate for MERS?	1,212	[ "34%" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 9 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What are some challenges associated with using media and social media to capture information about an emerging epidemic?	1,213	[ "the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 12 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What are the risks of health workers failing to wash hands?	1,214	[ "autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 13 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	Who is at risk when health workers fail to wash their hands?	1,215	[ "the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 13 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What was the R0 of SARS in absence of control measures?	1,216	[ "3" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 0 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	What is superspreading?	1,217	[ "where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 14 ]	3,083	3,737
2,463	How many people may have left Wuhan before travel restrictions were imposed?	1,218	[ "5 m people" ]	[ "SARS to novel coronavirus – old lessons and new lessons\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026896/\n\nSHA: 5d254ed178c092d3639ce70ae9653593acc471f9\n\nAuthors: McCloskey, Brian; Heymann, David L.\nDate: 2020-02-05\nDOI: 10.1017/s0950268820000254\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The response to the novel coronavirus outbreak in China suggests that many of the lessons from the 2003 SARS epidemic have been implemented and the response improved as a consequence. Nevertheless some questions remain and not all lessons have been successful. The national and international response demonstrates the complex link between public health, science and politics when an outbreak threatens to impact on global economies and reputations. The unprecedented measures implemented in China are a bold attempt to control the outbreak – we need to understand their effectiveness to balance costs and benefits for similar events in the future.", "Text: On 29 December 2019 clinicians in a hospital in Wuhan City, China noticed a clustering of cases of unusual pneumonia (with the first case identified at that time on 12 December) with an apparent link to a market that sells live fish, poultry and animals to the public. This event was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 31 December [1]. Within 4 weeks, by 26 January 2020, the causative organism had been identified as a novel coronavirus, the genome of the virus had been sequenced and published, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests had been developed, the WHO R&D Blueprint had been activated to accelerate diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccine development and a candidate vaccine was ready for initial laboratory testing. Currently Chinese health authorities are building a 1000 bed hospital in Wuhan in 10 days.", "By 26 January also, almost 50 million people in Wuhan and neighbouring cities had effectively been placed in quarantine while the WHO had determined that the event should not yet be declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [2] and had recommended no specific travel restrictions. The WHO have emphasised the importance of exit screening at ports in countries showing transmission of the novel coronavirus and have provided guidance for countries implementing entry screening at airports while acknowledging that evidence for the effectiveness of entry screening is equivocal.\n\nThis response is one of the swiftest, coordinated global responses to an emerging infectious disease the world has seen in modern times, but is it the appropriate response, will it be effective and is it sustainable?", "According to the situation report published by the WHO on 28 January 2020 [3], a total of 2798 confirmed 2019-nCoV cases have been reported globally; of these, 2761 cases were from China, including Hong Kong (8 cases), Macau (5) and Taipei (4). Thirty-seven confirmed cases have been reported outside of China in eleven countries in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia; of these 37 exported cases, 36 had a travel history from China or an epidemiological link to a case from China. Of the confirmed cases in China, 461 have been reported as severely ill, with 80 deaths to date.", "This outbreak and the response to it illustrate some key issues about how global preparedness and response capacity for outbreaks have evolved over almost two decades since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002/3 and what lessons have, or have not, been learned. It also raises questions about the impact these lessons have had on the way agencies and governments respond to these events and about the role of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR).", "One of the critical lessons from the SARS experience was the absolute necessity to be able to coordinate the international resources that are available in an outbreak and to get them focussed on identifying priorities and solving problems. The WHO established the means to do this for SARS and it has since been further developed and integrated into global preparedness, especially after the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Organisations such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Research Collaboration For Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) have been supported by the WHO Research Blueprint and its Global Coordinating Mechanism to provide a forum where those with the expertise and capacity to contribute to managing new threats can come together both between and during outbreaks to develop innovative solutions to emerging problems.", "This global coordination has been active in the novel coronavirus outbreak. WHO's response system includes three virtual groups based on those developed for SARS to collate real time information to inform real time guidelines, and a first candidate vaccine is ready for laboratory testing within 4 weeks of the virus being identified.", "Another key factor in successfully preventing and managing emerging threats is the rapid and transparent sharing of information between countries and agencies. There was extensive criticism of China for its perceived failure to share information about the emerging SARS infection early enough in the outbreak to allow countries to prepare and respond. There were similar concerns about information sharing as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) emerged and evolved in the Middle East in 2012, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and about the emergence of Ebola in West Africa in 2014.", "On this occasion information sharing seems to have been rapid and effective (while recognising that the information available in the early stages of an outbreak is always less than the global community would like). The WHO was notified of the original clustering within days and the full genomic sequence of the new virus was published less than 2 weeks after the cluster was first detected. The WHO has expressed its satisfaction with the actions of the Chinese authorities in sharing information with the WHO.\n\nWorking with journalists and the media to help them understand the science and epidemiology, particularly in a fast moving event, will improve risk communication to the public and reduce inappropriate concerns and panic.", "While reporting of this outbreak shows signs of the efforts of epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, national and international public health agencies and others engaging with journalists, there are also signs that this is not yet achieving it's goal. For example, the public perception is that the increase in case numbers reported daily by the Chinese authorities represents a daily escalation in the epidemic while the reality is that these numbers are also the result of active, aggressive, case finding in China and some of these cases are 'old' cases newly recognised as being due to the novel coronavirus. Similarly the virus is usually described by the media as 'deadly' and although this is true in the sense that it has caused deaths, the nuances of uncertain case fatality rates in the early stages of an outbreak are not being communicated. The current estimated case fatality rate seems to be around 3% which is significant but not comparable to the 10% rate for SARS or 34%", "reported for MERS. These misperceptions are still driving public anxiety.", "To supplement formal reporting mechanisms between countries and with WHO (including the IHR), the use of informal mechanisms such as media and social media reports was advocated in the light of the SARS experience. There are now globally several systems that provide collated information from informal reporting including networks of experts and scanning of media and social media. These contribute to, and amplify, epidemic intelligence and are being integrated with national and international surveillance systems.", "The value, and the challenges, of this additional source of information has been evident in the current outbreak. The value comes from ensuring that early indications of cases beyond the initial outbreak city have been detected and can supplement the global risk assessment and monitoring of the evolution of the outbreak. The challenges lie in the volume and diversity of the information available and the relative lack of verification mechanisms, such that one of these systems (ProMed) has commented that it was becoming increasingly difficult to assimilate the information being supplied [4] and to make meaningful interpretations.", "Early in the outbreak it was reported that health workers had not been infected. This was reassuring because it is health workers who many times, and inadvertently, amplify transmission. Failure to wash hands between patients, for example, can result not only in autoinfection, but also in infection of patients hospitalised for other causes when they provide care. Autoinfection is not only a risk for the health worker, but also for their families and the communities in which they live, depending on the transmissibility and means of transmission. More recently infection, and at least one death, in health workers has been confirmed. Although not unexpected this does add to the epidemiological risk.", "A characteristic of the SARS outbreak was the variability of transmissibility between cases and the occurrence of 'superspreading events' where a case infected significantly more contacts than the average. This was also seen with MERS in the outbreak in the Republic of Korea (RoK). In this current novel coronavirus outbreak, such superspreading events have not been documented but the epidemiology is still not clear. Confirming whether or not this is happening must be an urgent task for the Chinese investigation. Modellers have suggested reproductive rates (R 0 ) of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0) [5] and 2.6 (1.5-3.5) [6] ; R 0 for SARS was estimated at around 3 in the absence of control measures [7] .", "The economic impact of major outbreaks can be substantial for the affected country. This was seen clearly in SARS, MERS in RoK and Ebola in West Africa. One analyst estimates that the current coronavirus outbreak's likely impact will range from a 0.8% cut to real GDP if the epidemic is controlled within 3 months, to a 1.9% cost to GDP if the epidemic lasts 9 months [8] . This may increase substantially in the light of the extended restrictions on movement, and therefore trade and commerce, within China.\n\nThe emergence of a significant respiratory illness linked to a novel coronavirus represents a test of the global capacity to detect and mange emerging disease threats. Its emergence in China adds an additional dimension in the light of previous experience with SARS. The timing of the outbreak immediately before the Chinese Lunar New Year with its attendant population movements adds extra risk and urgency to the response.", "The rapid sharing of information in this outbreak and the speed of the coordinated response both in the country and internationally suggest that lessons have been learned from SARS that improve global capacity. The international networks and forums that now exist have facilitated the bringing together of expertise from around the world to focus research and development efforts and maximise the impact.\n\nAt this early stage in the outbreak information remains incomplete and key clinical and epidemiological questions have not yet been answered, but the deficit seems to be due more to the constraints of investigating an emerging disease than to any unwillingness to engage and share information with partners.", "There are some indications of areas where further improvement is necessary. The global media response to the unfolding events has been relatively balanced and informed but the nuances of the evolving situation have not been critically examined in partnership with the media and as a result the public perception of the risk may be exaggeratedalthough it of course remains possible that the outbreak will develop in a way that matches up to the perceived risk. The lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in determining a meaningful case fatality rate and the significance of ascertainment bias at the beginning of an outbreak, along with the impact of aggressive case finding on case numbers, are examples of where understanding could be improved. This is always a challenging process when balancing the resources focussed on analysing the situation on the ground with resources directed at interpreting the information for journalists but in SARS, the R 0 was seen to decrease in response to", "information reaching the public and the public then adopting risk reduction actions [6] ; so accurate public risk communication is critical to success. It would be helpful to find a forum where this can be explored with the media community after the event.", "The increase in access to early information from diverse sources including media and social media adds an important dimension to identifying and tracking new events globally and is a key part of the overall epidemic intelligence system. However, it is also a potential source of disinformation. When, as has been seen in this outbreak, the volume of information coming in exceeds any capacity to collate and analyse it and to attempt to cross-reference and verify separate items, there is a risk that the information fuels speculation and media and public concern. Again there is a fine balance between information that encourages appropriate risk avoidance actions and information that encourages inappropriate actions; however the public health is usually better served by more information rather than less.", "The role of a declaration of a PHEIC in managing a serious outbreak has been questioned in the light of Ebola in West Africa and in the Democratic Republic of Congo [9] and has been challenged again with this outbreak. The binary nature of a PHEIC declaration (either an event is a PHEIC or it isn'tthere are no intermediate options) and the specificity of the three defined criteria for a PHEIC have caused difficulty for Emergency Committees in considering whether a given event should be a PHEIC. The lack of a clear understanding of what a PHEIC declaration is meant to achieve adds to the Emergency Committee's difficulties, as does the relative paucity of clinical and epidemiological answers at this stage of the investigation. In this instance the Emergency Committee were divided in coming to a conclusion but decided on balance that the current situation, although an emergency, should not as yet be declared a PHEIC [2]. As with Ebola in the DRC, there has been criticism of the WHO for", "this decision but, as with Ebola, it is not immediately clear what would be different in the response if a PHEIC was declared.", "The WHO is working on improving the way in which Emergency Committees develop their advice for the Director General but, as recommended by this Emergency Committee and the post-Ebola IHR Review Committee in 2015, the development of an intermediate alert alongside WHO's risk assessment process may be helpful.\n\nA key function of a PHEIC declaration is that it is the (only) gateway to the WHO Temporary Recommendations on possible travel and trade restrictions to limit international spread of a disease. In this case several countries globally had already implemented entry screening at airports and China had begun closing down international travel from Wuhan before the Emergency Committee had finished their deliberations. While the WHO would not, and could not, interfere with the sovereign decisions of member states, the lack of influence on travel and trade decisions could prove problematic.", "Alongside the speed of the response in this outbreak, we have seen dramatic changes in the scale of the response. The imposition of very extensive quarantine measures on millions of people as an attempt to break the transmission of the virus is unprecedented. We do not know whether they will be effective; indeed we do not know how we will determine if they have been effectivewhat end point can we measure that will provide an answer to that question? If recent suggestions that people infected with this coronavirus may be infectious while incubating or asymptomatic, and the reports that up to 5 m people left Wuhan before the travel restrictions were imposed, are confirmed, the efficacy of these control measures will be more challenged.\n\nGiven the likely impact on at least the Chinese economy and probably the global economy, it will be important to understand the role and the effectiveness of public health measures on this scale for the future.", "However, the imposition of these dramatic measures does also raise a wider question: if there is an impact from these measures, what other countries would (or could) implement such measures? Would other countries accept the self-imposed economic damage that China has accepted to try and contain this outbreak? Is it reasonable to consider that national governments would close down public transport into and out of London, New York or Paris in the week before Christmas even if it were shown to be an effective control measure?\n\nThese decisions and questions cross the interface between public health, science and politics. The response to this outbreak in\n\nChina was inevitably influenced by the historical reaction to the country's response to SARS and the world's suspicion of China's lack of cooperation at that time. The current response is therefore framed within a context of not wanting to be seen to be behaving in the same way with this event.", "This may indicate another impact of the SARS (and MERS and Ebola) experience on the response to subsequent outbreaksa tendency to look at worst case scenarios and respond accordingly and a fear of 'getting it wrong'. This can deter leaders at all levels, from outbreak teams to national governments, from making judgements when all the information they would like is not available in case those judgments turn out to be wrong when the full information becomes available.", "In emergency response it is generally better to over-react and then scale back if necessary rather than under-react and then act too late. Response should be on a 'no regrets' basismake the best decisions possible on the basis of the best information and science available at the time but do not judge or criticise if later information suggests a different course of action. The early response must recognise what is known and what is not known and look at what of the unknowns can reasonably be estimated by reference to previous outbreaks, similar pathogens, early reporting and modelling, etc. The risk assessment and response can then be modified and refined as information on the unknowns evolves.", "Key to that approach, however, is confidence that decisions will not be criticised based on information that was not available at the time. It is also important to be ready to change decisions when the available information changessomething that both scientists and politicians can find difficult.\n\nIn that context, China should not be judged for implementing what might appear to be extreme measures but China should also be prepared to discontinue the measures quickly if evidence suggests they are not the best way to solve the problem. By closing airports the international spread from Wuhan may be decreased, but success will depend on how effective the measures really are at stopping people moving out of the affected area as well as on the behaviour of the virus. As always, only time will tellbut time is scarce." ]	[ 23 ]	3,083	3,737
2,450	What are main steps for mitigating the COVID -19 transmission during transport of suspected and confirmed patients?	641	[ "firstly, early recognition of the deteriorating patient; secondly, HCW safety; thirdly, bystander safety; fourthly, contingency plans for medical emergencies during transport; fifthly, post-transport decontamination" ]	[ "Safe patient transport for COVID-19\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079436/\n\nSHA: 3ec1eb120d6bcca31ddc69832be05988c0952e60\n\nAuthors: Liew, Mei Fong; Siow, Wen Ting; Yau, Ying Wei; See, Kay Choong\nDate: 2020-03-18\nDOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-2828-4\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: nan\n\nText: Mei Fong Liew 1,2* , Wen Ting Siow 1,2 , Ying Wei Yau 3 and Kay Choong See 1", "Dear Editor, Although COVID-19 has not been officially labelled as a pandemic yet, the global burden of disease is significant and continues to rise. The virus has a high humanto-human transmissibility via airborne, droplet and contact routes [1] . Patient numbers can surge, and hospitals should be ready not just with the infrastructure, but also staff to be familiar with workflows. Kain and Fowler [2] have eloquently detailed influenza pandemic preparations for hospitals and intensive care units, and we feel the principles described in the article are relevant to COVID-19. Staff must consider patient transfers in between wards, as COVID-19 patients are admitted in isolation facilities to contain infected cases and to avoid nosocomial spread [1] .", "Infectious cases may be intentionally brought out of isolation rooms for various reasons. Intra-hospital transfer may be required from emergency departments to the wards, from the general floor to the intensive care unit and from the wards to radiology suites. Inter-hospital transfer may be required for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) if patients with COVID-19 develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome within hospitals with only basic ventilation facilities. During episodes of patient transport outside of isolation, potential breaches of infection control can occur. At the same time, when COVID-19 patients turn ill during transport, their management is exceptionally challenging as accompanying staff would be wearing cumbersome personal protective equipment (PPE) [3] .", "Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 is a national priority in Singapore [4] , and part of this effort involves planning and conducting safe patient transport for suspected or confirmed cases. HCWs who handle the transport of COVID-19 patients must consider the following principles (see Table 1 ): firstly, early recognition of the deteriorating patient; secondly, HCW safety; thirdly, bystander safety; fourthly, contingency plans for medical emergencies during transport; fifthly, post-transport decontamination. Specific action steps require designated zones for transport [5] , sufficient supplies of PPE, staff training and support personnel like security officers and cleaning crews. Powered air-purifying respirators add a layer of safety on top of N95 respirators [3] and should be used if possible for high-risk cases, such as those requiring ambulance transport to ECMO centres.", "Given the continued global spread of COVID-19, we expect that more hospitals will need to deal with this disease. Haphazard transport of infected cases leading to nosocomial spread can stymie efforts to break the chains of transmission. We hope that our suggestions can aid others in ensuring safe patient transport for COVID-19 and reduce nosocomial spread. \n\nNot applicable.\n\nAvailability of data and materials Not applicable.\n\nEthics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.\n\nNot applicable.", "The authors declare that they have no competing interests. prior to embarking on the same ambulance • Staff to doff PPE in the nearest clinical area, for example ambulance bay, upon arrival • Terminal cleaning of ambulance upon arrival when back at primary hospital BVM bag-valve-mask, CO2 carbon dioxide, ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, EMD emergency, GW general ward, HEPA high-efficiency particulate air, ICU intensive care unit, PAPR powered air-purifying respirator, PPE personal protective equipment" ]	[ 3 ]	538	859
1,676	How many deaths each year are caused by gastroenteritis?	900	[ "two to three million" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 1 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What percentage of sporadic diarrhea are caused by norovirus?	901	[ "60%" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 3 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis in children?	902	[ "Rotavirus" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 5 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	Which types of adenovirus are associated with diarrhea?	903	[ "type 40 and 41" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 6 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	When was the first tissue culture system developed?	904	[ "1907" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 9 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What are the most common DNA-based techniques for detecting viruses?	905	[ "1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA)" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 9 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What is Universal primer-PCR used for in viral studies?	906	[ "detect novel variants" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 10 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What is Koch's first postulate?	907	[ "The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 21 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What is Koch's second postulate?	908	[ "the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 21 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	What is Koch's third postulate?	909	[ "after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 21 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	If all 3 of Koch's postulates are met, what does this indicate?	911	[ "microbe is the cause of the disease" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 21 ]	2,953	4,071
1,676	Is Koch's postulate applicable to enteric viruses?	912	[ "not applicable" ]	[ "Viruses Causing Gastroenteritis: The Known, The New and Those Beyond\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776197/\n\nSHA: f7b30ee89775bc82607cc6bc87feb5934b47625f\n\nAuthors: Oude Munnink, Bas B.; van der Hoek, Lia\nDate: 2016-02-19\nDOI: 10.3390/v8020042\nLicense: cc-by\n\nAbstract: The list of recently discovered gastrointestinal viruses is expanding rapidly. Whether these agents are actually involved in a disease such as diarrhea is the essential question, yet difficult to answer. In this review a summary of all viruses found in diarrhea is presented, together with the current knowledge about their connection to disease.", "Text: The gastrointestinal tract is a vulnerable organ for infections as there is constant contact with the outside, mainly via the oral route. Inflammation of the stomach and the intestines (gastroenteritis) can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Gastroenteritis is responsible for two to three million deaths each year, making it one of the most common causes of mortality [1] . Mainly children in developing countries, but also immuno-compromised individuals in developed countries, suffer from diarrhea. While bacterial and parasitic gastrointestinal infections are declining as a result of proper disposal of sewage and safe drinking water, viral gastroenteritis is not declining in developing countries [2] . In the developed world, viruses are already the most common pathogens causing diarrhea [3] .", "Although viruses infecting humans had already been described since 1901 [4] and viruses were suspected to play a role in diarrhea, it lasted until 1972, when the first virus causing gastroenteritis (norovirus) was identified in an outbreak of diarrhea in Norwalk (California, United States) [5] . Shortly after the discovery of norovirus several other viruses causing gastroenteritis were discovered: rotavirus in epithelial cells of children with gastroenteritis [6] , astrovirus in infantile diarrhea cases [7] , enteric adenoviruses in the feces of children with acute diarrhea [8] , and sapovirus during an outbreak of gastroenteritis in an orphanage in Sapporo, Japan [9] . All these viruses spread via the fecal-oral route through person-to-person transmission and are described in more detail below.", "Noroviruses are part of the family Caliciviridae and outbreaks of norovirus gastroenteritis have been reported in cruise ships, health care settings, schools, and in the military, but norovirus is also responsible for around 60% of all sporadic diarrhea cases (diarrhea cases where an enteropathogen could be found), reviewed in the literature [10, 11] . The pathogenesis of norovirus infection has been tested in vivo. Filtrated norovirus was given to healthy volunteers after which most of them developed diarrhea [12] . Culturing of the virus, however, has been a problem since its discovery, yet one study has recently described the cultivation of norovirus in B cells, and has revealed that co-factors, such as histo-blood antigen expressing enteric bacteria, are probably needed before enteric viruses can be cultured in vitro [13] . Sapoviruses are also members of the Caliciviridae. There are five human genogroups of sapovirus described [14] which account for 2.2%-12.7% of all", "gastroenteritis cases around the globe [14, 15] . Sapovirus outbreaks occur throughout the year and can be foodborne [16] . For sapoviruses it has been described that the virus was not found before onset of an outbreak, and that it was found in 95% of the patients during an outbreak, while it declined to 50% after an outbreak, indicating that the virus introduces disease in a naturally infected host [17] .", "Rotavirus infection is the most common cause of viral gastroenteritis among children; however, parents of infected children also often become ill and as a result rotavirus is the second most common cause of gastroenteritis in adults [18] . Studies in human volunteers have shown that infection with rotavirus causes diarrhea, results in shedding of the virus and a rise in antibody anti-virus titer after infection [19] . Additionally, astroviruses infections are common, accounting for about 10% of all sporadic diarrhea cases [20] . Astrovirus has been isolated from diseased people, filtrated and administered to healthy individuals after which in some of the volunteers diarrheal disease was observed and astrovirus was shed in their stools [21] . The virus can replicate in human embryonic kidney cells and was detected by electron microscopy (EM) [21] . Adenoviruses are responsible for around 1.5%-5.4% of the diarrhea cases in children under the age of 2 years, reviewed in the literature", "[22] . Of the 57 identified adenovirus types [23] , only adenoviruses type 40 and 41 are associated with diarrhea [24] . Next to these two types, adenovirus type 52 can also cause gastroenteritis [25] , although it has been argued whether type 52 is actually a separate type since there is not sufficient distance to adenovirus type 41 [26] . Adenoviruses can generally be propagated in cell lines; however, enteric adenovirus 40/41 are difficult to culture, reviewed in the literature [27] .", "In the 1980s and 1990s some viral agents were identified for which the direct association with disease is less clear. Aichi viruses are members of the Picornaviridae identified in fecal samples of patients with gastroenteritis [28] . Aichi virus infection has been shown to elicit an immune response [29] . Since their discovery, two case-control studies were performed, but, although both studies only found Aichi virus in stools of diarrheic patients, the prevalence of Aichi virus (0.5% and 1.8%) was too low to find a significant association with diarrhea [30, 31] . In immuno-compromised hosts the virus is found in higher quantities and is not associated with diarrhea [32] . Toroviruses, part of the Coronaviridae, were first identified in 1984 in stools of children and adults with gastroenteritis [33] . Torovirus infection is associated with diarrhea [34] and is more frequently observed in immuno-compromised patients and in nosocomial infected individuals [34] . Retrospective analysis", "of nosocomial viral gastroenteritis in a pediatric hospital revealed that in 67% of the cases torovirus could be detected [35] . However, only a limited number of studies report the detection of torovirus and therefore the true pathogenesis and prevalence of this virus remains elusive. Picobirnaviruses belong to the Picobirnaviridae and were first detected in the feces of children with gastroenteritis [36] . Since the initial discovery, the virus has been detected in fecal samples of several animal species, and it has been shown that the viruses are genetically highly diverse without a clear species clustering, reviewed in the literature [37] . This high sequence diversity has also been observed within particular outbreaks of gastroenteritis [38, 39] , limiting the likelihood that picobirnaviruses are actually causing outbreaks, as no distinct single source of infection can be identified.", "In 1907 the first tissue culture system was developed which was regarded as the golden standard for virus detection for a long time, reviewed in the literature [40] . In the 1930's serology and electron microscopy were introduced which boosted the discovery of new viruses. During these years, these methods developed fruitfully but viruses infecting the gastrointestinal tract were especially difficult to culture. Throughout the last several decades, several DNA-based techniques have been developed for virus discovery that boosted the identification of novel viruses in stool samples. The four most used methods are: 1. Universal primer-PCR [41] ; 2. Random priming-based PCR [42] ; 3. Virus Discovery cDNA, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (VIDISCA) [43] ; and 4. Sequence-Independent Single Primer Amplification (SISPA) [44] . Universal primer-PCR is a virus discovery technique that uses universal primers designed on conserved parts of a specific viral family, which can be used to", "detect novel variants of this viral family. Random priming-based PCR is a technique that randomly amplifies all nucleic acids present in samples, after which the resulting PCR products can be cloned and sequenced. SISPA and VIDISCA are virus discovery techniques that are based on digestion with restriction enzymes, after which adaptors can be ligated. These methods have been successful in the discovery of novel viruses, but there are some limitations. Universal primers are useful for discovering novel viruses of a chosen family, but the primers, based on our present knowledge of the viral family, may not fit on all unknown variants. Random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA are sequence independent amplification techniques. The disadvantage of random priming PCR, SISPA and VIDISCA is that the virus needs to be present at a high concentration, while the host background DNA and/or RNA should be minimal and preferably not complex.", "In recent years, sequence independent amplification techniques improved considerably by coupling these techniques to next-generation sequencing platforms and as a result several novel viruses have been described in gastroenteritis cases, such as cosavirus [45] , Saffold virus [46] , klassevirus/salivirus [47, 48] , polyomavirus [49] , bufavirus [50] , tusavirus [51] , and recovirus [52] . Although these viruses are found in individuals with diarrhea, for most of them the degree of circulation (prevalence) and the ability to cause morbid conditions or disease (pathogenesis) remains to be determined, as described below (also see Table 1 ). Only found in low prevalence; : Only limited data is available about this virus; *: Antibodies against astrovirus HMO-C were observed whereas no antibodies against astrovirus HMO-A were found (HMO = human-mink-ovine-like astrovirus); -No published data available;ˆPicobirnavirus, tusavirus and recovirus were identified in the gastrointestinal tract", "after next-generation sequencing, but no information regarding antibody response or association with diarrhea is available.", "In the last decade, two novel clades of astroviruses have been discovered in stool samples from patients with diarrhea that are genetically far distinct from the classical astroviruses. The first clade consists of the VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, and VA-5 astroviruses, which are genetically related to feline and porcine astroviruses, while the second clade consists of the MLB1, MLB2 and MLB3 astroviruses and form a separate cluster [55, 57, [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] . For these novel clades the pathogenesis remains to be determined since the viruses have been identified in patients with and without diarrhea, and in some studies the viruses were associated with diarrhea whilst in others no association could be found [55] [56] [57] . In addition an antibody response was observed against some but not all novel astrovirus types [54, 58] . Recently, astrovirus MLB2 has also been detected in blood plasma of a febrile child [79] and astrovirus VA1 in a frontal cortex biopsy specimen from a patient", "with encephalitis [80] , suggesting that astrovirus infection may not be limited to the gastrointestinal tract.", "In 2008, Saffold virus was detected in a stool sample from a pediatric patient with fever of unknown origin [46] . Although Saffold virus type 3 was cultured on a human epithelial cervical carcinoma (HeLa) cell line, cytopathic effects were observed and neutralizing antibodies have been found in serum samples [59] , subsequent case-control studies showed that the virus was not significantly associated with diarrhea [53, 60, 61] . Additionally, in 2008 cosavirus was identified in a patient with diarrhea [45] . However, a case-control study showed that this virus was also detected in a substantial amount of individuals without diarrhea and is not associated with diarrhea [32, 62, 63] . Klassevirus/salivirus was identified in 2009 in two fecal samples from infants with gastrointestinal disorders [47, 48] . In two studies the detection of this virus was associated with diarrhea [48, 53] , while in another study no association with disease was found [65] . Serological evidence of human", "klassevirus infection was obtained, suggesting that the virus infects human cells [64] .", "With the use of next-generation sequencing techniques, three novel polyomaviruses were also identified in human fecal samples. MW polyomavirus was identified in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi in 2012 [49] , and in the same year MX polyomavirus was found in stool samples of patients with and without diarrhea from Mexico, United States and Chili [68] . One year later, STL polyomavirus was found in the stool of a healthy child from Malawi [71] . An antibody response against MX polyomavirus [66] and MW polyomavirus [69] was observed, although MW polyomavirus [67] and STL polyomavirus [70] were not significantly associated with diarrhea in two independent case-control studies.", "Bufavirus is a member of the Parvoviridae and was first described in 2012 [50] . Two case-controls in Thailand and in Turkey showed that the virus was only found in patients with diarrhea and not in controls [72, 73] ; however, because of the low prevalence (respectively 0.3% in Thailand and 1.4% in Turkey), no significant association with disease was found. Tusavirus, another recently described member of the Parvoviridae, was identified in the feces of a child from Tunisia with unexplained diarrhea [51] , and thus far this is the only study describing this virus. Recovirus is a novel member of the Caliciviridae and was found in diarrhea samples from Bangladesh [52] . Similar to tusavirus, this is the only study describing this virus thus far.", "The identification of the above-mentioned novel viruses certainly increased our knowledge about viruses that can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, yet it is unknown how many of these novel viruses are actually enteropathogens. Human stool contains a wide variety of viruses which can be derived from different hosts: Besides genuine human viruses, plant dietary viruses [32, 81] and animal dietary viruses [82] can also be found in human stool, as well as bacteriophages and viruses infecting protozoa [32] . Even viruses derived from other parts of the body can be found in fecal samples, such as the John Cunningham Polyoma virus originating from the kidney ending up in feces via urine [83] , and rhinoviruses [84] , bocaviruses [85] and coronaviruses [86] originating from the respiratory tract and probably swallowed. Furthermore, viruses infecting blood cells such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 can also be detected in fecal samples [87] . Therefore, once a novel", "virus has been identified in human stool samples it is does not indicate that this virus is replicating in human intestinal cells.", "Koch recognized as early as 1891 that associating the presence of a certain agent with a certain disease is complex, and he therefore postulated guidelines that should be followed before an agent can be classified as a pathogen [88] . His postulates can be summarized in three points: (1) The microbe occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; (2) the microbe occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and (3), after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, the microbe can induce the disease anew. If a microbe has fulfilled these three postulates it can be stated that \"the occurrence of the microbe in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the microbe is the cause of the disease can be considered\". For enteric viruses, however, these postulates", "are not applicable. Firstly, the enteric viruses are not easily cultured [89] [90] [91] , and, secondly, prolonged sheading of viral agents and asymptomatic infection have been described [92] , reviewed in the literature [93] . Although attempts have been made to adjust the Koch's postulates specifically for viruses and the current methodologies deployed [94] [95] [96] , fulfilling these postulates is still not feasible on most occasions due to the lack of an efficient cell culture system, difficulties in antigen synthesis and high levels of viral genetic diversity within viral groups, reviewed in the literature [97] .", "Several approaches have been made to develop a methodology that adds more significance to the discovery of a novel virus. One approach is based on the enrichment of immunogenic viruses before next-generation sequencing by making use of autologous antibody capture prior to sequencing. This method was tested and validated on several fecal samples containing adenovirus, sapovirus and norovirus, and has shown to enrich immunogenic viruses, while plant viruses and bacteriophages were not enriched after antibody capture [98] . Another method to enrich for relevant viruses prior to next-generation sequencing is the so-called virome capture sequencing platform for vertebrate viruses (VirCapSeq-VERT) which uses~2 million probes which cover the genomes of all members of the viral taxa known to infect vertebrates [99] . However, both methods have limitations: For the antibody capture method, viruses need to be present in high viral loads, and convalescent blood, serum or plasma needs to be", "available. A disadvantage of the VirCapSeq-VERT technique is that completely novel viruses, e.g., viruses from a novel virus family, will not be identified.", "The most straightforward method to demonstrate association with disease is using case-control studies. In order to perform such studies, matched stool samples have to be collected in case and control groups from the same geographical locations in the same period of the year. Additionally, whereas in recent years case-control studies have been performed using conventional real-time PCRs (RT-PCR), in the future, sequence independent next-generation sequencing techniques can be used for such case-control studies. Since it allows detection of virtually all nucleic acids, next-generation sequencing has several advantages compared to specific RT-PCRs. Next-generation sequencing prevents the necessity to perform numerous RT-PCRs to screen for all viruses suspected to be associated with disease, and novel variants of currently known viral families or novel virus species can be detected which can be particularly beneficial if only few reference genomes are available. The major benefit of such", "a database is that in the immediate future the most important question can be answered if a novel virus is identified in diarrhea cases: Is the virus likely to cause disease?", "In conclusion, the long list of viruses identified in the gastrointestinal tract is most probably not final yet. It is to be expected that several novel viruses will be described in the near future, since detection of these agents using the current next-generation sequence technologies is no longer a difficulty. Therefore, adding relevance to the discovery of novel viruses should be the main goal for future studies." ]	[ 22 ]	2,953	4,071
1,671	What is disease resilience?	1,249	[ "the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 1 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What family of virus does SARS reside in?	1,250	[ "coronavirus" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 0 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What family of virus does MERS reside in?	1,251	[ "coronavirus" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 0 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	When was SARS-CoV first identified?	1,252	[ "2003" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 2 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	How many people did SARS-CoV infect?	1,253	[ "8000" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 2 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What percentage of people infected with MERS-CoV died?	1,256	[ "35-50%" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 2 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What percentage of people infected with SARS-CoV died?	1,255	[ "10%" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 2 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What was the reservoir for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,258	[ "animal reservoirs" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 2 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What was the primary threatening clinical finding in patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,260	[ "severe lung pathology" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 3 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the relationship between SARS-CoV and acute lung injury (ALI)?	1,262	[ "Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI)" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 3 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the relationship between SARS-CoV and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)?	1,263	[ "In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 3 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is required for a person to survive a serious SARS-CoV infection?	1,265	[ "a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 4 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	How does cell-entry differ between SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,266	[ "SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 6 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is a major difference in clinical progression between SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,267	[ "Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 6 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	How does transmission differ between SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,268	[ "SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 6 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	How do SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV evade the immune system sensing it's genome?	1,269	[ "SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 8 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What role does initial viral titer play in the prognosis of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV?	1,270	[ "In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 8 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the timeline of the type I interferon (IFN) response in SARS-CoV infection?	1,272	[ "In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 9 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	How do SARS-CoV viral proteins interact with the immune response?	1,271	[ "several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 8 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What was the role of corticosteroid use in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV?	1,273	[ "Retrospective analysis revealed that, when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the role of interferon's (IFNs) in the treatment of SARS-CoV?	1,274	[ "there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 15 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What are some negative effects of decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation?	1,275	[ "decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 16 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the role of topoisomerase I in improving host resilience in viral lung infections?	1,276	[ "A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 16 ]	2,474	3,348
1,671	What is the role of complement 5a (C5a) in increasing host resilience to viral lung infection?	1,277	[ "Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection" ]	[ "Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079962/\n\nSHA: f7cfc37ea164f16393d7f4f3f2b32214dea1ded4\n\nAuthors: Jamieson, Amanda M\nDate: 2016-07-01\nDOI: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0060\nLicense: cc-by", "Abstract: Recently, two coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, have emerged to cause unusually severe respiratory disease in humans. Currently, there is a lack of effective antiviral treatment options or vaccine available. Given the severity of these outbreaks, and the possibility of additional zoonotic coronaviruses emerging in the near future, the exploration of different treatment strategies is necessary. Disease resilience is the ability of a given host to tolerate an infection, and to return to a state of health. This review focuses on exploring various host resilience mechanisms that could be exploited for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other respiratory viruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.", "Text: The 21st century was heralded with the emergence of two novel coronaviruses (CoV) that have unusually high pathogenicity and mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) was first identified in 2003 [6] [7] [8] [9] . While there was initially great concern about SARS-CoV, once no new cases emerged, funding and research decreased. However, a decade later Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), also known as HCoV-EMC, emerged initially in Saudi Arabia [3, 10] . SARS-CoV infected about 8000 people, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 10% of those infected [11] . While MERS-CoV is not as widespread as SARS-CoV, it appears to have an even higher mortality rate, with 35-50% of diagnosed infections resulting in death [3, [12] [13] . These deadly betacoronavirus viruses existed in animal reservoirs [4] [5] 9, [14] [15] . Recently, other CoVs have been detected in animal populations raising the possibility that we will", "see a repeat of these types of outbreaks in the near future [11, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . Both these zoonotic viruses cause a much more severe disease than what is typically seen for CoVs, making them a global health concern. Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV result in severe lung pathology. Many infected patients have acute lung injury (ALI), a condition that is diagnosed based on the presence of pulmonary edema and respiratory failure without a cardiac cause. In some patients there is a progression to the more severe form of ALI, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [21] [22] [23] .", "In order to survive a given infection, a successful host must not only be able to clear the pathogen, but tolerate damage caused by the pathogen itself and also by the host's immune response [24] [25] [26] . We refer to resilience as the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of pathogens and the immune response to pathogens. A resilient host is able to return to a state of health after responding to an infection [24, [27] [28] . Most currently available treatment options for infectious diseases are antimicrobials, For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected] REviEW Jamieson future science group and thus target the pathogen itself. Given the damage that pathogens can cause this focus on rapid pathogen clearance is understandable. However, an equally important medical intervention is to increase the ability of the host to tolerate the direct and indirect effects of the pathogen, and this is an area that is just beginning to be explored [29] . Damage to the lung", "epithelium by respiratory pathogens is a common cause of decreased resilience [30] [31] [32] . This review explores some of the probable host resilience pathways to viral infections, with a particular focus on the emerging coronaviruses. We will also examine factors that make some patients disease tolerant and other patients less tolerant to the viral infection. These factors can serve as a guide to new potential therapies for improved patient care.", "Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are typified by a rapid progression to ARDS, however, there are some distinct differences in the infectivity and pathogenicity. The two viruses have different receptors leading to different cellular tropism, and SARS-CoV is more ubiquitous in the cell type and species it can infect. SARS-CoV uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry to cells, while MERS-CoV uses the ectopeptidase DPP4 [33] [34] [35] [36] . Unlike SARS-CoV infection, which causes primarily a severe respiratory syndrome, MERS-CoV infection can also lead to kidney failure [37, 38] . SARS-CoV also spreads more rapidly between hosts, while MERS-CoV has been more easily contained, but it is unclear if this is due to the affected patient populations and regions [3] [4] 39 ]. Since MERS-CoV is a very recently discovered virus, [40, 41] more research has been done on SARS-CoV. However, given the similarities it is hoped that some of these findings can also be applied to MERS-CoV, and other potential", "emerging zoonotic coronaviruses.", "Both viral infections elicit a very strong inflammatory response, and are also able to circumvent the immune response. There appears to be several ways that these viruses evade and otherwise redirect the immune response [1, [42] [43] [44] [45] . The pathways that lead to the induction of the antiviral type I interferon (IFN) response are common targets of many viruses, and coronaviruses are no exception. SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are contained in double membrane vesicles (DMVs), that prevents sensing of its genome [1, 46] . As with most coronaviruses several viral proteins suppress the type I IFN response, and other aspects of innate antiviral immunity [47] . These alterations of the type I IFN response appear to play a role in immunopathology in more than one way. In patients with high initial viral titers there is a poor prognosis [39, 48] . This indicates that reduction of the antiviral response may lead to direct viral-induced pathology. There is also evidence that the delayed type I", "IFN response can lead to misregulation of the immune response that can cause immunopathology. In a mouse model of SARS-CoV infection, the type I IFN response is delayed [49] . The delay of this potent antiviral response leads to decreased viral clearance, at the same time there is an increase in inflammatory cells of the immune system that cause excessive immunopathology [49] . In this case, the delayed antiviral response not only causes immunopathology, it also fails to properly control the viral replication. While more research is needed, it appears that MERS has a similar effect on the innate immune response [5, 50] .", "The current treatment and prevention options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are limited. So far there are no licensed vaccines for SAR-CoV or MERS-CoV, although several strategies have been tried in animal models [51, 52] . There are also no antiviral strategies that are clearly effective in controlled trials. During outbreaks several antiviral strategies were empirically tried, but these uncontrolled studies gave mixed results [5, 39] . The main antivirals used were ribavirin, lopinavir and ritonavir [38, 53] . These were often used in combination with IFN therapy [54] . However, retrospective analysis of these data has not led to clear conclusions of the efficacy of these treatment options. Research in this area is still ongoing and it is hoped that we will soon have effective strategies to treat novel CoV [3,36,38,40, [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] .", "The lack of effective antivirals makes it necessary to examine other potential treatments for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Even if there were effective strategies to decrease viral burden, for these viruses, the potential for new emerging zoonotic CoVs presents additional complications. Vaccines cannot be produced in time to stop the spread of an emerging virus. In addition, as was demonstrated during SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks, there is always a challenge during a crisis situation to know which Host resilience to emerging coronaviruses REviEW future science group www.futuremedicine.com antiviral will work on a given virus. One method of addressing this is to develop broad-spectrum antivirals that target conserved features of a given class of virus [65] . However, given the fast mutation rates of viruses there are several challenges to this strategy. Another method is to increase the ability of a given patient to tolerate the disease, i.e., target host resilience mechanisms. So far", "this has largely been in the form of supportive care, which relies on mechanical ventilation and oxygenation [29, 39, 66] .", "Since SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were discovered relatively recently there is a lack of both patient and experimental data. However, many other viruses cause ALI and ARDS, including influenza A virus (IAV). By looking at data from other high pathology viruses we can extrapolate various pathways that could be targeted during infection with these emerging CoVs. This can add to our understanding of disease resilience mechanisms that we have learned from direct studies of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Increased understanding of host resilience mechanisms can lead to future host-based therapies that could increase patient survival [29] .", "One common theme that emerges in many respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is that much of the pathology is due to an excessive inflammatory response. A study from Josset et al. examines the cell host response to both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and discovered that MERS-CoV dysregulates the host transcriptome to a much greater extent than SARS-CoV [67] . It demonstrates that glucocorticoids may be a potential way of altering the changes in the host transcriptome at late time points after infection. If host gene responses are maintained this may increase disease resilience. Given the severe disease that manifested during the SARS-CoV outbreak, many different treatment options were empirically tried on human patients. One immunomodulatory treatment that was tried during the SARS-CoV outbreak was systemic corticosteroids. This was tried with and without the use of type I IFNs and other therapies that could directly target the virus [68] . Retrospective analysis revealed that,", "when given at the correct time and to the appropriate patients, corticosteroid use could decrease mortality and also length of hospital stays [68] . In addition, there is some evidence that simultaneous treatment with IFNs could increase the potential benefits [69] . Although these treatments are not without complications, and there has been a lack of a randomized controlled trial [5, 39] .", "Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive and have many physiological effects [5, 39] . Several recent studies have suggested that other compounds could be useful in increasing host resilience to viral lung infections. A recent paper demonstrates that topoisomerase I can protect against inflammation-induced death from a variety of viral infections including IAV [70] . Blockade of C5a complement signaling has also been suggested as a possible option in decreasing inflammation during IAV infection [71] . Other immunomodulators include celecoxib, mesalazine and eritoran [72, 73] . Another class of drugs that have been suggested are statins. They act to stabilize the activation of aspects of the innate immune response and prevent excessive inflammation [74] . However, decreasing immunopathology by immunomodulation is problematic because it can lead to increased pathogen burden, and thus increase virus-induced pathology [75, 76] . Another potential treatment option is increasing tissue", "repair pathways to increase host resilience to disease. This has been shown by bioinformatics [77] , as well as in several animal models [30-31,78-79]. These therapies have been shown in cell culture model systems or animal models to be effective, but have not been demonstrated in human patients. The correct timing of the treatments is essential. Early intervention has been shown to be the most effective in some cases, but other therapies work better when given slightly later during the course of the infection. As the onset of symptoms varies slightly from patient to patient the need for precise timing will be a challenge.", "Examination of potential treatment options for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV should include consideration of host resilience [29] . In addition to the viral effects, and the pathology caused by the immune response, there are various comorbidities associated with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV that lead to adverse outcomes. Interestingly, these additional risk factors that lead to a more severe disease are different between the two viruses. It is unclear if these differences are due to distinct populations affected by the viruses, because of properties of the virus themselves, or both. Understanding these factors could be a key to increasing host resilience to the infections. MERS-CoV patients had increased morbidity and mortality if they were obese, immunocompromised, diabetic or had cardiac disease [4, 12] .", "REviEW Jamieson future science group Risk factors for SARS-CoV patients included an older age and male [39] . Immune factors that increased mortality for SARS-CoV were a higher neutrophil count and low T-cell counts [5, 39, 77] . One factor that increased disease for patients infected with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV was infection with other viruses or bacteria [5, 39] . This is similar to what is seen with many other respiratory infections. A recent study looking at malaria infections in animal models and human patients demonstrated that resilient hosts can be predicted [28] . Clinical studies have started to correlate specific biomarkers with disease outcomes in ARDS patients [80] . By understanding risk factors for disease severity we can perhaps predict if a host may be nonresilient and tailor the treatment options appropriately.", "A clear advantage of targeting host resilience pathways is that these therapies can be used to treat a variety of different infections. In addition, there is no need to develop a vaccine or understand the antiviral susceptibility of a new virus. Toward this end, understanding why some patients or patient populations have increased susceptibility is of paramount importance. In addition, a need for good model systems to study responses to these new emerging coronaviruses is essential. Research into both these subjects will lead us toward improved treatment of emerging viruses that cause ALI, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.\n\nThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.", "No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.\n\n• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus are zoonotic coronaviruses that cause acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.\n\n• Antivirals have limited effects on the course of the infection with these coronaviruses.\n\n• There is currently no vaccine for either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.\n\n• Host resilience is the ability of a host to tolerate the effects of an infection and return to a state of health.\n\n• Several pathways, including control of inflammation, metabolism and tissue repair may be targeted to increase host resilience.\n\n• The future challenge is to target host resilience pathways in such a way that there are limited effects on pathogen clearance pathways. Future studies should determine the safety of these types of treatments for human patients.", "Papers of special note have been highlighted as:" ]	[ 16 ]	2,474	3,348

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.