Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
group_3_presentation_1_-_zika_virus [2018/02/02 14:50] duruf [Transmission] |
group_3_presentation_1_-_zika_virus [2018/02/02 14:55] (current) duruf [Microcephaly] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| ==== Zika Virus Preclinical Studies ==== | ==== Zika Virus Preclinical Studies ==== | ||
| - | Several studies, such as a study conducted by Abbink et al. (2016), have shown promising results in the preclinical phase of vaccine development. Abbink et al. (2016) immunized eight rhesus monkeys with a Zika Purified Inactivated Virus (PIV) and eight with aluminum potassium sulfate as a control at both zero and four weeks. Upon analysis, it was determined that all eight Rhesus monkeys who received the Zika PIV developed Zika specific binding antibodies according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and microneutralization assays (MN50) whereas the other eight Rhesus monkeys did not develop the antibodies. The researchers then infected both groups with viral particles of Zika-BR or Zika-PR with an n=4 per treatment. After measuring the viral load with RT-PCR, researchers determined that the control monkeys showed ZIKV-specific MN50 tigers increase after the Zika Virus challenge. Control monkeys also showed six to seven day viremia with peak loads on days three to five. The virus was detected in the urine, CSF as well as colorectal secretions as seen in Figure 2. In contrast, PIV vaccinated monkeys showed complete protection against ZIKV challenge as no virus was present in any of the detection methods. | + | Several studies, such as a study conducted by Abbink et al. (2016), have shown promising results in the preclinical phase of vaccine development. Abbink et al. (2016) immunized eight rhesus monkeys with a Zika Purified Inactivated Virus (PIV) and eight with aluminum potassium sulfate as a control at both zero and four weeks. Upon analysis, it was determined that all eight Rhesus monkeys who received the Zika PIV developed Zika specific binding antibodies according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and microneutralization assays (MN50) whereas the other eight Rhesus monkeys did not develop the antibodies. The researchers then infected both groups with viral particles of Zika-BR or Zika-PR with an n=4 per treatment. After measuring the viral load with RT-PCR, researchers determined that the control monkeys showed ZIKV-specific MN50 tigers increase after the Zika Virus challenge. Control monkeys also showed six to seven day viremia with peak loads on days three to five. The virus was detected in the urine, CSF as well as colorectal secretions as seen in Figure 4. In contrast, PIV vaccinated monkeys showed complete protection against ZIKV challenge as no virus was present in any of the detection methods. |
| Researchers did other studies using adoptive transfer of vaccine elicited antibodies (IgG) and at high doses they protected from Zika virus. Researchers also tested DNA plasmid based vaccines on Rhesus monkeys which also showed protection against Zika Virus. They determined that there were no adverse side effects and that there were also similar results with the PIV vaccine seen in mice. The only side note the researchers mentioned was that studies needed to be performed to evaluate cross-reactivity with antibodies to dengue viruses and other similar viruses. | Researchers did other studies using adoptive transfer of vaccine elicited antibodies (IgG) and at high doses they protected from Zika virus. Researchers also tested DNA plasmid based vaccines on Rhesus monkeys which also showed protection against Zika Virus. They determined that there were no adverse side effects and that there were also similar results with the PIV vaccine seen in mice. The only side note the researchers mentioned was that studies needed to be performed to evaluate cross-reactivity with antibodies to dengue viruses and other similar viruses. | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a rare autoimmune disease that affects neurons. Specifically, the myelin coating around axons is damaged and the conduction of signals between nerve cells is compromised. | Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a rare autoimmune disease that affects neurons. Specifically, the myelin coating around axons is damaged and the conduction of signals between nerve cells is compromised. | ||
| - | A recent study by Cao-Lormeau et al. (2016) published in //The Lancet// presented considerable evidence linking GBS with previous Zika virus infection. The researchers presented a case study involving 42 individuals with confirmed GBS during a massive Zika virus outbreak in French Polynesia between 2013 and 2014. Blood samples were taken from patients with confirmed GBS (n=42) and patients without GBS (control; n=98). The researchers used various techniques to detect antibodies against Zika virus (IgM/IgG) in both groups of patients. Evidence of previous Zika virus infection, demonstrated by the presence of Zika antibodies, was shown for 41 (98%) patients in the GBS group compared to 35 (36%) of patients in the control group (Figure 3; p<0.0001). In addition, a neutralizing response against Zika virus was seen in 42 (100%) of the GBS patients and 54 (56%) of the control group patients (Figure 3; p<0.0001). This data presented by Cao-Lormeau et al. (2016) exhibits a significant association between previous Zika virus infection and GBS. | + | A recent study by Cao-Lormeau et al. (2016) published in //The Lancet// presented considerable evidence linking GBS with previous Zika virus infection. The researchers presented a case study involving 42 individuals with confirmed GBS during a massive Zika virus outbreak in French Polynesia between 2013 and 2014. Blood samples were taken from patients with confirmed GBS (n=42) and patients without GBS (control; n=98). The researchers used various techniques to detect antibodies against Zika virus (IgM/IgG) in both groups of patients. Evidence of previous Zika virus infection, demonstrated by the presence of Zika antibodies, was shown for 41 (98%) patients in the GBS group compared to 35 (36%) of patients in the control group (Figure 5; p<0.0001). In addition, a neutralizing response against Zika virus was seen in 42 (100%) of the GBS patients and 54 (56%) of the control group patients (Figure 5; p<0.0001). This data presented by Cao-Lormeau et al. (2016) exhibits a significant association between previous Zika virus infection and GBS. |
| <box 57% round | > {{:gbs_cao.png?625|}} </box| Figure 5 : Presence of Zika virus antibodies and positive neutralizing response in GBS affected and control patients. OR= Odds Ratio. (Modified from Cao-Lormeau et al., 2016)> | <box 57% round | > {{:gbs_cao.png?625|}} </box| Figure 5 : Presence of Zika virus antibodies and positive neutralizing response in GBS affected and control patients. OR= Odds Ratio. (Modified from Cao-Lormeau et al., 2016)> | ||
| ==== Microcephaly ==== | ==== Microcephaly ==== | ||
| - | Microcephaly is a birth defect associated with Congenital Zika Syndrome. Babies with microcephaly have a smaller head circumference than age and sex-matched patients. The decreased head circumference is due to improper or lack of brain development during pregnancy (CDC, 2018). Severe microcephaly (Figure 4) is an extreme form of the condition where the baby's head circumference is much smaller (~1st percentile) than babies of the same age and sex (~3rd percentile) (CDC, 2018). | + | Microcephaly is a birth defect associated with Congenital Zika Syndrome. Babies with microcephaly have a smaller head circumference than age and sex-matched patients. The decreased head circumference is due to improper or lack of brain development during pregnancy (CDC, 2018). Severe microcephaly (Figure 6) is an extreme form of the condition where the baby's head circumference is much smaller (~1st percentile) than babies of the same age and sex (~3rd percentile) (CDC, 2018). |
| <box 58% round| > {{::microcephaly_screen_shot_2018-01-24_at_11.19.55_am.png?625|}} </box| Figure 6: Baby with normal head circumference, microcephaly, and severe microcephaly, respectively (Modified from CDC, 2018)> | <box 58% round| > {{::microcephaly_screen_shot_2018-01-24_at_11.19.55_am.png?625|}} </box| Figure 6: Baby with normal head circumference, microcephaly, and severe microcephaly, respectively (Modified from CDC, 2018)> | ||
| - | A case study published by Mlakar et al. (2016) in //The New England Journal of Medicine// described the morphology of a baby with confirmed severe microcephaly. The mother, who had been infected with Zika virus, requested termination of the pregnancy at 32 weeks. At the time of termination the fetus' head circumference was 26cm (1st percentile). An autopsy performed on the fetal brain showed clear degeneration, calcifications, malformation and incomplete development of important structures (Figure 5), resulting in the small head circumference characteristic of microcephaly. | + | A case study published by Mlakar et al. (2016) in //The New England Journal of Medicine// described the morphology of a baby with confirmed severe microcephaly. The mother, who had been infected with Zika virus, requested termination of the pregnancy at 32 weeks. At the time of termination the fetus' head circumference was 26cm (1st percentile). An autopsy performed on the fetal brain showed clear degeneration, calcifications, malformation and incomplete development of important structures (Figure 7), resulting in the small head circumference characteristic of microcephaly. |
| <box 58% round| > {{:fetal_autopsy_brain.png?625|}} </box| Figure 7: Autopsy of fetal brain. Panel C shows white calcifications and loss of gyration in cortex (Black arrows), open sylvian fissures (Black arrowheads), and poorly delineated basal ganglia (Black asterisks). Panel D shows dilated lateral ventricles and collapsed left ventricle (White arrowheads), thalami are well developed (Black asterisks) along with the hippocampus (White asterisks), however contralateral structure failed to develop. (Modified from Mlakar et al., 2016)> | <box 58% round| > {{:fetal_autopsy_brain.png?625|}} </box| Figure 7: Autopsy of fetal brain. Panel C shows white calcifications and loss of gyration in cortex (Black arrows), open sylvian fissures (Black arrowheads), and poorly delineated basal ganglia (Black asterisks). Panel D shows dilated lateral ventricles and collapsed left ventricle (White arrowheads), thalami are well developed (Black asterisks) along with the hippocampus (White asterisks), however contralateral structure failed to develop. (Modified from Mlakar et al., 2016)> | ||
| - | In addition, Mlakar et al. (2016) used electron microscopy to image ultra-thin sections of the fetal brain and staining of viral particles in order to visualize the presence of Zika virus in the fetal brain tissue. Imaging showed dense clusters of viral particles among the damaged brain tissue, as well as the presence of active viral replication (Figure 6). | + | In addition, Mlakar et al. (2016) used electron microscopy to image ultra-thin sections of the fetal brain and staining of viral particles in order to visualize the presence of Zika virus in the fetal brain tissue. Imaging showed dense clusters of viral particles among the damaged brain tissue, as well as the presence of active viral replication (Figure 8). |
| <box 45% round| > {{:electron_microscopy.png?475|}} </box| Figure 8: Electron microscopy of ultra-thin sections of the fetal brain and staining of viral particles. Panel A shows dense clusters of virions amongst damaged brain cells. Panel B is a magnified image of Panel A, clearly showing the virion clusters. Panel C shows viral particles with bright interiors indicative of viral replication. Panel D is a negative staining of a virion showing morphological characteristics consistent with Zika virus (Modified from Mlakar et al., 2016)> | <box 45% round| > {{:electron_microscopy.png?475|}} </box| Figure 8: Electron microscopy of ultra-thin sections of the fetal brain and staining of viral particles. Panel A shows dense clusters of virions amongst damaged brain cells. Panel B is a magnified image of Panel A, clearly showing the virion clusters. Panel C shows viral particles with bright interiors indicative of viral replication. Panel D is a negative staining of a virion showing morphological characteristics consistent with Zika virus (Modified from Mlakar et al., 2016)> | ||
