Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Three-Year Follow-up of 2-Dose Versus 3-Dose HPV Vaccine
    Bornstein J, Roux S, Kjeld Petersen L, Huang LM, Dobson SR, Pitisuttithum P, et al.
    Pediatrics, 2021 01;147(1).
    PMID: 33386332 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-4035
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Human papillomavirus (HPV) antibody responses to the 9-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine among girls and boys (aged 9-14 years) receiving 2-dose regimens (months 0, 6 or 0, 12) were noninferior to a 3-dose regimen (months 0, 2, 6) in young women (aged 16-26 years) 4 weeks after last vaccination in an international, randomized, open-label trial (NCT01984697). We assessed response durability through month 36.

    METHODS: Girls received 2 (months 0 and 6 [0, 6]: n = 301; months 0 and 12 [0, 12]: n = 151) or 3 doses (months 0,2, and 6 [0, 2, 6]: n = 301); boys received 2 doses ([0, 6]: n = 301; [0, 12]: n = 150); and young women received 3 doses ([0, 2, 6]: n = 314) of 9vHPV vaccine. Anti-HPV geometric mean titers (GMTs) were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay (cLIA) and immunoglobulin G-Luminex immunoassay (IgG-LIA) through month 36.

    RESULTS: Anti-HPV GMTs were highest 1 month after the last 9vHPV vaccine regimen dose, decreased sharply during the subsequent 12 months, and then decreased more slowly. GMTs 2 to 2.5 years after the last regimen dose in girls and boys given 2 doses were generally similar to or greater than GMTs in young women given 3 doses. Across HPV types, most boys and girls who received 2 doses (cLIA: 81%-100%; IgG-LIA: 91%-100%) and young women who received 3 doses (cLIA: 78%-98%; IgG-LIA: 91%-100%) remained seropositive 2 to 2.5 years after the last regimen dose.

    CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses persisted through 2 to 2.5 years after the last dose of a 2-dose 9vHPV vaccine regimen in girls and boys. In girls and boys, antibody responses generated by 2 doses administered 6 to 12 months apart may be sufficient to induce high-level protective efficacy through at least 2 years after the second dose.

  2. Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1
    Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links