An unexplained death at a Russian plague research institute has prompted international scrutiny. The incident raises questions about laboratory safety, transparent reporting, and infection prevention preparedness while the cause remains unconfirmed.
News|Articles|August 19, 2015
NIH Scientists Successfully Test MERS Vaccine in Monkeys and Camels
Advertisement
National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists and colleagues report that an experimental vaccine given six weeks before exposure to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) fully protects rhesus macaques from disease. The vaccine also generated potentially protective MERS-CoV antibodies in blood drawn from vaccinated camels. A study detailing the synthetic DNA vaccine appears in the Aug. 19 Science Translational Medicine. MERS-CoV, which causes pneumonia deep in the lungs, emerged in 2012 and has sickened more than 1,400 people and killed 500, mostly in the Middle East and Asia.
Led by NIH-funded University of Pennsylvania scientists, the research team developed the investigational MERS vaccine by learning from previous vaccine studies of another coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SARS sickened more than 8,000 people and killed more than 700 in 2003. The experimental MERS vaccine uses the S spike protein to generate immunity; because MERS-CoV undergoes mutations, the scientists created a "consensus" S protein by comparing all available MERS-CoV protein sequences. This synthetic protein has shown broad protection against different MERS-CoV types, the scientists report. Collaborators included researchers from NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of Intramural Research; Public Health Agency of Canada; Inovio Pharmaceuticals; the University of Washington; and the University of South Florida.
The rhesus macaques received low -or -high doses of the vaccine, although results showed no significant differences between the groups and antibody responses appeared after one or two immunizations regardless of dose. Next, the group plans to explore how to condense the six-week timeframe to establish protection, and they are hopeful the vaccine will become a candidate for use in camels and people.
Source: NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
See also: http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2015/08/synthetic-dna-vaccine-against-mers-induces-immunity.aspx
Advertisement
Related to this article
Behind every landmark in infection prevention, from antimicrobial stewardship guidelines to the COVID-19 town halls that reached flight attendants and teachers, is a generation of physician-scientists who led SHEA through crises, organizational change, and scientific breakthroughs. Infection Control Today traces 30 years of SHEA presidents and the lasting mark they left on the field.
Missing instruments and processing delays can strain OR–SPD relationships. At AORN 2026, John Kimsey, vice president of processing optimization and customer success for STERIS, discusses understanding root causes, exploring off-site reprocessing for ambulatory surgical centers, and using hands-on simulation to help surgical teams see sterile processing from a different perspective.
This week's coverage in Infection Control Today centered on a common thread: the systems, partnerships, and data that let infection prevention teams catch problems before patients are harmed.
UPMC’s genomic surveillance initiative earned national recognition for patient safety. Alexander Sundermann, DrPH, CIC, FAPIC, AL-CIP, explains how the award could help infection preventionists secure leadership support and sustainable funding for earlier outbreak detection.
Knowing the protocol is only the beginning. In The Clean Bite, Sherrie Busby explores how explaining the why, addressing staff concerns, and creating clear procedures can help dental teams make infection control part of everyday practice.
What might infection prevention rounds miss when visible conditions dominate the conversation? Tommy Davis, PhD, CMIP, a member of ICT's executive advisory board, makes the case for structured observations of clinical workflows, shared accountability, and greater attention to environmental services staff’s insights.
A proposed $27.7 million reduction in AHRQ funding raises questions about support for infection prevention research and implementation. Here is what the September 25 announcement identifies, as well as what remains unknown about specific IPC programs.
Advertisement
Advertisement