Although this high pathogenicity was initially seen as a stringent test of vaccine performance, it soon became clear that Model partly because of its exceptional virulence in naïve rhesus macaques, which resulted in consistent virologic outcomesĪfter infection ( Parker et al. To evaluate recombinant adenovirus type-5 (rAd5) vectors encoding HIV-1 genes in clinical trials. The SHIV89.6P strain, for example, is notorious in that vaccine efficacy against this virus supported the decision Many SIV and SHIV strains have been developedįor in vivo challenge studies but, importantly, not all of these viruses effectively mimic the biology and pathogenesis of Viral surrogates of HIV-1, including SIVs and artificial simian/HIV (SHIV) chimeras. Rhesus monkeys are not susceptible to HIV-1 infection, so vaccine efficacy is assessed by challenging animals with pathogenic That helped refine the SIV/rhesus macaque model because broadly applicable lessons can be learned from them. We also discuss some of the historical milestones in HIV-1 vaccine research The outcomes of HIV-1 vaccine clinical trials. HIV-1 vaccine that also works in the animal model, here we argue that properly designed SIV challenge studies can predict Although this animal system has yet to be validated, which can only be accomplished by the development of an effective In the case of HIV, vaccine candidates are primarily evaluated using the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV)/rhesus macaque
Moreover, NHP studies also enabled the generation of vaccines against hepatitis B ( Wieland 2015), yellow fever ( Norrby 2007), and anthrax ( Friedlander et al. (Sabin) polio vaccines ( Horstmann 1985). NHPs were used to assess the pathogenicity and protective effects of the prototypes of the inactivated (Salk) and live-attenuated Genetically diverse and evolutionarily closer to humans-features that likely increase their translational value. Compared with standard laboratory mouse strains, NHPs are more In this regard, nonhuman primates (NHPs) have been used whenever possible to informĪnd guide the development of vaccines against human pathogens. The “go/no-go” criteria for prioritizing vaccine prototypes depend primarily on in vivo measures, animal models provide an In view of these obstacles, new immunization regimens are thoroughly screenedĭuring preclinical stages to ensure that only the most promising ones advance into costly and lengthy human trials. It also entails great financial risks because the majority of candidatesĭo not progress beyond early clinical trials. Protocol can be finally approved for use in people. The development of a new vaccine is an expensive and complex enterprise that can take several years until an immunization Many more conversations on these important topics. Our hope is that readers enjoy these articles and that they trigger Of the opinions and perspectives expressed in each article. Were additional scientists addressing the same question, they did not know who these authors were, which ensured the independence Note that while each author knew that there
In each case, several different perspectives are provided. The Editors posed 13 interesting questions critical for our understanding of vaccines and immune memory to a broad group ofĮxperts in the field. Introductory material covered in many other reviews. This short, innovative format aims to bring aįresh perspective by encouraging authors to be opinionated, focus on what is most interesting and current, and avoid restating In these fields, with the freedom to talk about the issues as they see fit. What are the most interesting topics likely to come up over dinner or drinks with your colleagues? Or, more importantly, whatĪre the topics that don' t come up because they are a little too controversial? In Immune Memory and Vaccines: Great Debates, Editors Rafi Ahmed and Shane Crotty have put together a collection of articles on such questions, written by thought leaders