Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines

Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines

The objective of this research was to compare the role of two adjuvants, aluminum hydroxide and calcium phosphate, with two different tetanus toxoid batches, one obtained by stationary culture and the other one by sumerged culture. The generated immune response was evaluated through the potency assay of the National Institute of Health (NIH), which states that in order to guaranty that the vaccines are within the established standards the immune response has to be at least 2UI/mL. The results indicate that aluminum hydroxide presents in most cases better titers, while in other cases no significant difference was found. Results showed also, that both adjuvants gave a better immune response with batch 69 (static culture) than with batch 11 (sumerged culture). The variance analysis showed an error of p< 0.002.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arias, Janeth del C., Sánchez, Diana C., Vásquez C., Mery C., Fernández, Cindy M., Marina Parra, Luz
Format: Digital revista
Language:spa
Published: Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales U.D.C.A 2007
Online Access:https://revistas.udca.edu.co/index.php/ruadc/article/view/575
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id rev-ruadc-co-article-575
record_format ojs
institution UDCA CO
collection OJS
country Colombia
countrycode CO
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-ruadc-co
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname Biblioteca de la UDCA de Colombia
language spa
format Digital
author Arias, Janeth del C.
Sánchez, Diana C.
Vásquez C., Mery C.
Fernández, Cindy M.
Marina Parra, Luz
spellingShingle Arias, Janeth del C.
Sánchez, Diana C.
Vásquez C., Mery C.
Fernández, Cindy M.
Marina Parra, Luz
Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
author_facet Arias, Janeth del C.
Sánchez, Diana C.
Vásquez C., Mery C.
Fernández, Cindy M.
Marina Parra, Luz
author_sort Arias, Janeth del C.
title Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
title_short Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
title_full Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
title_fullStr Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
title_sort evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines
description The objective of this research was to compare the role of two adjuvants, aluminum hydroxide and calcium phosphate, with two different tetanus toxoid batches, one obtained by stationary culture and the other one by sumerged culture. The generated immune response was evaluated through the potency assay of the National Institute of Health (NIH), which states that in order to guaranty that the vaccines are within the established standards the immune response has to be at least 2UI/mL. The results indicate that aluminum hydroxide presents in most cases better titers, while in other cases no significant difference was found. Results showed also, that both adjuvants gave a better immune response with batch 69 (static culture) than with batch 11 (sumerged culture). The variance analysis showed an error of p< 0.002.
publisher Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales U.D.C.A
publishDate 2007
url https://revistas.udca.edu.co/index.php/ruadc/article/view/575
work_keys_str_mv AT ariasjanethdelc evaluationoftwoadjuvantsfortheformulationofantitetanicvaccines
AT sanchezdianac evaluationoftwoadjuvantsfortheformulationofantitetanicvaccines
AT vasquezcmeryc evaluationoftwoadjuvantsfortheformulationofantitetanicvaccines
AT fernandezcindym evaluationoftwoadjuvantsfortheformulationofantitetanicvaccines
AT marinaparraluz evaluationoftwoadjuvantsfortheformulationofantitetanicvaccines
AT ariasjanethdelc evaluaciondedosadyuvantesenlaformulaciondeunavacunaantitetanica
AT sanchezdianac evaluaciondedosadyuvantesenlaformulaciondeunavacunaantitetanica
AT vasquezcmeryc evaluaciondedosadyuvantesenlaformulaciondeunavacunaantitetanica
AT fernandezcindym evaluaciondedosadyuvantesenlaformulaciondeunavacunaantitetanica
AT marinaparraluz evaluaciondedosadyuvantesenlaformulaciondeunavacunaantitetanica
_version_ 1764985690307690496
spelling rev-ruadc-co-article-5752021-07-13T07:59:09Z Evaluation of two adjuvants for the formulation of antitetanic vaccines Evaluación de dos adyuvantes en la formulación de una vacuna antitetánica Arias, Janeth del C. Sánchez, Diana C. Vásquez C., Mery C. Fernández, Cindy M. Marina Parra, Luz Tétano Adyuvante Fosfato de calcio Hidróxido de aluminio Límite floculante Tetanus Adjuvant Calcium phosphate Aluminum hydroxide Flocculent limit The objective of this research was to compare the role of two adjuvants, aluminum hydroxide and calcium phosphate, with two different tetanus toxoid batches, one obtained by stationary culture and the other one by sumerged culture. The generated immune response was evaluated through the potency assay of the National Institute of Health (NIH), which states that in order to guaranty that the vaccines are within the established standards the immune response has to be at least 2UI/mL. The results indicate that aluminum hydroxide presents in most cases better titers, while in other cases no significant difference was found. Results showed also, that both adjuvants gave a better immune response with batch 69 (static culture) than with batch 11 (sumerged culture). The variance analysis showed an error of p< 0.002. El objetivo de esta investigación fue el de comparar el comportamiento de dos adyuvantes, hidróxido de aluminio y fosfato de calcio, con dos lotes diferentes de toxoide tetánico, uno producido por cultivo agitado y el otro producido por cultivo estático. Fue evaluada la respuesta inmune generada a través de la prueba de potencia del National Institute of Health (NIH) para garantizar el cumplimiento de los estándares establecidos para la prueba de potencia, en la cual se postula que la respuesta inmune generada debe ser como mínimo de 2UI/mL. Los resultados muestran que el aluminio presenta títulos más altos en la mayoría de los casos y en otros no se aprecia una diferencia significativa entre los dos adyuvantes. También se observó claramente que cualquiera de los dos adyuvantes genera una mejor respuesta inmune con el lote 69 (cultivo estático) que con el lote 11 (cultivo agitado). El análisis de varianza arroja un error de p< 0,002. Universidad de Ciencias Aplicadas y Ambientales U.D.C.A 2007-06-30 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf text/html https://revistas.udca.edu.co/index.php/ruadc/article/view/575 10.31910/rudca.v10.n1.2007.575 Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2007): Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica. Enero-Junio; 129-138 Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2007): Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica. Enero-Junio; 129-138 Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica; v. 10 n. 1 (2007): Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica. Enero-Junio; 129-138 2619-2551 0123-4226 10.31910/rudca.v10.n1.2007 spa https://revistas.udca.edu.co/index.php/ruadc/article/view/575/496 https://revistas.udca.edu.co/index.php/ruadc/article/view/575/497 /*ref*/AGGERBECK, H.; FENGER, C.; HERON, I. 1995. Booster vacination against Diphteria and Tetanus in man. Comparison of calcium posphate and aluminium hidroxide as adyuvants - II. Vaccine. 13(14):1366-1374. /*ref*/AGGERBECK, H.; WANTZIN, J.; HERON, I. 1996. Booster vacination against Diphteria and Tetanus in man. Comparison of three different vaccine formulations - III. Vaccine. 14(13):1265-1272. /*ref*/AGGERBECK, H.; GIZURARSON, S.; WANTZIN, J.; HERON, I. 1997. Intranasal booster vaccination against diphtheria and tetanus in man. Vaccine. 15;307-316. /*ref*/ARIAS, J.; CÉSPEDES, M.; DÍAZ, S.; GUTIÉRREZ, I. 2003. Evaluación de la influencia de la agitación y de la concentración de formaldehído en la detoxificación de la toxina tetánica. Universitas Scient. 8(2):23-30. /*ref*/AZUMA, I. 1992. Synthetic immunoadjuvants: application to nonspecific host stimulation and potentiation of vaccine immunogenicity. Vaccine. 10:1000-1006. /*ref*/BARRETO, A. R. 2000. Estudio preliminar de la fermentación de Clostridium tetani, por cultivo continuo. Tesis de maestría. Facultad de Ingeniería. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. p.250. /*ref*/BENNET, B.; CHECK, I.J.; OLSEN, M.R.; HUNTER, R.L. 1992. A comparison of commercially available adjuvants for use in research. J. Immunol. Methods 153:31-40. /*ref*/DILUZIO, N.R. 1985. Update on the immunomodulating activities of glucans. Springer Semin. Immunopathol 8:387-400. /*ref*/GUERRERO, J.; GATTAS, C.R. 1982. Immunolomodulating substances: an overview. Rev Microbiol. 13(2):110-115. /*ref*/GUPTA, R.; RELYVELD, E. 1991. Adverse reactions after injection of adsorbed Diphteria -Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) vaccine are not due only to Pertussis organisms or Pertussis components in the vaccine. Vaccine. 9:669-702 /*ref*/INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD (INS). 1995. Manual de procedimientos del laboratorio de Tetanos. Bogotá. 120p. /*ref*/INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD (INS). 1998. Instituto Nacional De Salud. 80 años. Una historia, Un Compromiso. Bogotá (Colombia). 140p. /*ref*/LATHAM, W.C.; BENT, D.F.; LEVINE, L. 1962. Tetanus toxin production in the abscense of protein. Appl. Microbiol 10:142-146. /*ref*/MARCIANI DANTE, J. 2007. Avantogen. Ed. SIIC 2a Ed. 22p. /*ref*/ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DE LA SALUD (OMS). 1997. Vacunas e Inmunización. Situación actual. Ginebra. 25p. /*ref*/ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DE LA SALUD (OMS). 2006. Vacunas e Inmunización: Situación actual. Ginebra. 10p. /*ref*/REYNOLDS, J.A.; KASTELLO, M.D.; HERRIGTON, D.G.; CRABBS, C.L.; PETERS, C.J.; JEMSKI, J.V. 1980. Glucan-induced enhancement of host resistance to selected infectious diseases. Infect. Immun. 30:51-57. /*ref*/ROITT, I.M. 1991. Essential Immunology. 7 ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 326p. /*ref*/SPRIGGS, D.; KOFF, W. 1991. Topics in Vaccine Adjuvant Research. CRC Press. United States. 145p. /*ref*/STEWART-TULL, D.E.S. 1989. Recommendations for the assessment of adjuvants (immunopotentiators). En: Gregoriadeis, G.; Allison, A.C.; Poste, G, eds. Immunological adjuvants and vaccines. New York: Plenum, p.213-226. /*ref*/TAKX-KOHLEN, B.C. 1992. Immunomodulators. Future prospects. Pharm. Weekbl. Science 14:24-52. /*ref*/UNITED STATES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. 2003. Division of immunization, Atlanta, Georgia. Surveillance for Safety After Immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System published on January 24, 2003 Vol. 52, No. SS-1. /*ref*/VAX. 2006. Nature's adjuvant. IAVI Report Bulletin 4(10), Octubre 2006. Disponible desde Internet en: http://www.iavireport.org/vax/VAXOctober2006.asp (con acceso 05/03/07). /*ref*/WAGNEROVÁ, J.; FERENCÍK, M. 1993. Secretory and regulatory products of macrophagues in the immune and inflamatory reactions. Biol. Bratislav. 48(6):709-717.

Similar Items