ライフサイエンスコーパス: protective efficacy

1 en 85B further enhances immune responses and protective efficacy.

2 ed, this singular approach can yield limited protective efficacy.

3 eportedly erodes proliferative potential and protective efficacy.

4 faster, to higher titers, and with improved protective efficacy.

5 didate that enhances both TH1 generation and protective efficacy.

6 tant role than others in determining vaccine protective efficacy.

7 with long interdose periods and provides low protective efficacy.

8 monstrate emergent properties with regard to protective efficacy.

9 e, however, not yet matched whole sporozoite protective efficacy.

10 red the mucosal immune responses and vaccine protective efficacy.

11 minidase (NA) have to be updated for optimal protective efficacy.

12 nt isotypes manifest profound differences in protective efficacy.

13 ficant antigen-sparing effects with improved protective efficacy.

14 require two or three immunisations for full protective efficacy.

15 imal to evaluate immunogenicity, safety, and protective efficacy.

16 33 MAb and anti-B5 MAb did not synergize the protective efficacy.

17 nctional mechanism for their contribution to protective efficacy.

18 or development of PRRSV vaccines of enhanced protective efficacy.

19 able to wild-type HMPV in immunogenicity and protective efficacy.

20 rtussis, vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy.

21 ponse is considered critical for HIV vaccine protective efficacy.

22 um salts may not be potent enough to achieve protective efficacy.

23 tors has an impact on the memory profile and protective efficacy.

24 vaccines because of high immunogenicity and protective efficacy.

25 c fitness, longevity, polyfunctionality, and protective efficacy.

26 y the rBCG vaccine candidate relevant to its protective efficacy.

27 ning CS may result in a significant clinical protective efficacy.

28 ovel combination of antibodies with enhanced protective efficacy.

29 wild-type H7N9 virus to assess the vaccine's protective efficacy.

30 d in augmented immune responses and improved protective efficacy.

31 ar responses during vaccination may maximize protective efficacy across all DENV serotypes.

32 The protective efficacy afforded by anti-A33 MAb was compara

33 acity of the boosting antigen influences the protective efficacy afforded by prime-boost vaccine regi

34 he detailed kinetics of immune responses and protective efficacy after a single intranasal immunizati

35 We also noted significant cross-protective efficacy against 6-month persistent infection

36 c--and were evaluated for immunogenicity and protective efficacy against a highly lethal intraperiton

37 xture of CD4-CD8 lipopeptide vaccine and the protective efficacy against acute virus replication and

38 hese candidate vaccine strains showed strong protective efficacy against AHSV infection in an IFNAR(-

39 The primary endpoint was protective efficacy against all episodes of clinical mal

40 argeting three arenaviruses and demonstrated protective efficacy against all three targets.

41 No regimen had any protective efficacy against anaemia or hospital admissio

42 on of primary prostatic tumor and also shows protective efficacy against angiogenesis and late stage

43 CD4(+) T cell responses are associated with protective efficacy against blood-stage malaria, whereas

44 abbit antibody to PMA-FLA showed evidence of protective efficacy against both types of this organism

45 r and humoral immune responses and increased protective efficacy against challenge with recombinant v

46 n chi9241 also induced significantly greater protective efficacy against challenge with virulent S. p

47 ein of Plasmodium falciparum and has partial protective efficacy against clinical and severe malaria

48 cine that affords in the neighborhood of 50% protective efficacy against clinical malaria is in the l

49 hich is a notable achievement, its long-term protective efficacy against each of the 4 dengue virus s

50 i-GP antibody responses and further improved protective efficacy against Ebola virus infection.

51 age antigen(s) alone has induced significant protective efficacy against erythrocytic-stage infection

52 mice and guinea pigs for immunogenicity and protective efficacy against genital challenge with wild-

53 nes demonstrated superior immunogenicity and protective efficacy against H7N9 infection in ferrets an

54 It induces sterile protective efficacy against heterologous strain sporozoi

55 he only vaccine approach shown to elicit any protective efficacy against HIV-1 acquisition is based o

56 r respiratory tract or in immunogenicity and protective efficacy against HMPV challenge.

57 h level of neutralizing serum antibodies and protective efficacy against HMPV; AMPV was only weakly i

58 evels and cellular immune responses, and the protective efficacy against homologous and heterologous

59 ) CFU with the mutant to evaluate safety and protective efficacy against intraperitoneal and aerosol

60 ole in attenuating diarrhea and in providing protective efficacy against intraperitoneal Shigella inf

61 The essential oil showed mutagen-protective efficacy against IQ and MeIQ tested as direct

62 CD47KO mice with vaccination showed greater protective efficacy against lethal challenge, as evidenc

63 tested using opsonophagocytic assays and for protective efficacy against lethal peritonitis in mice.

64 With passive case detection, protective efficacy against malaria was 86% (77-92), and

65 Protective efficacy against malaria, compared with daily

66 quine encephalitis virus (VEEV) demonstrated protective efficacy against Marburg virus in nonhuman pr

67 These findings demonstrate that NDV-3 protective efficacy against MRSA in SSSI involves a robu

68 s an urgent need for therapeutics with broad protective efficacy against multiple filoviruses.

69 sity on vaccine-induced immune responses and protective efficacy against pandemic H1N1 influenza viru

70 y CD8+ T cell quantity and quality determine protective efficacy against reinfection.

71 ificantly improved vector immunogenicity and protective efficacy against RSV.

72 iola virus homologues might exhibit improved protective efficacy against smallpox.

73 Our primary objective was to assess protective efficacy against symptomatic, virologically c

74 These data show protective efficacy against the most pathogenic Angola s

75 ent pan-ebolavirus neutralizing activity and protective efficacy against three virulent ebolaviruses.

76 ly, the mutant's virulence potential and its protective efficacy against type A and type B strains we

77 , diminished antibody responses, and reduced protective efficacy against wild-type virus challenge fo

78 ults in a vaccine with a 20-fold decrease in protective efficacy and a 10,000-fold increase in safety

79 effectiveness has been hindered by variable protective efficacy and a lack of lasting memory respons

80 Coxiella burnetii infection, we compared the protective efficacy and immunogenicity between formalin-

81 In this study, we assessed the protective efficacy and immunogenicity of a multisubunit

82 e skin using a microneedle patch can improve protective efficacy and induce long-term sustained immun

83 nt quantity can be achieved while maximizing protective efficacy and preserving proliferative potenti

84 ) (VRC-10-332) that demonstrated substantial protective efficacy and revealed a genetic signature of

85 We assessed the protective efficacy and safety of prolonging co-trimoxaz

86 the scarcity of pre-clinical models to test protective efficacy and support further clinical trials.

87 ly distinct GAPs confer different degrees of protective efficacy and that live vaccine persistence in

88 double-knockout Pbuis3(-)/4(-) parasites for protective efficacy and the contribution of CD8(+) T cel

89 et because of its documented immunogenicity, protective efficacy, and antifecundity effects observed

90 igated their immunogenicity, long-term cross-protective efficacy, and effects on lung proinflammatory

91 s, and the extent of attenuation and induced protective efficacy are not readily available.

92 Field studies to demonstrate protective efficacy are planned.

93 enicity in M. tuberculosis-naive animals and protective efficacy as measured by a reduction in lung M

94 infected cells, contributes substantially to protective efficacy at early and late time points postim

95 To estimate the protective efficacy, BALB/c mice were given three inject

96 lective TLR ligand combinations can increase protective efficacy by increasing the quality rather tha

97 Ongoing studies will determine whether protective efficacy can be enhanced by additional altera

98 novel cocktails of antibodies with enhanced protective efficacy compared to individual MAbs.

99 serogroups were associated with the highest protective efficacy compared to vaccines with fewer comp

100 d that the backbone-specific MAb had optimal protective efficacy compared with the acetate-specific M

101 Protective efficacy correlated with the functionality of

102 For wild-type mice, protective efficacy corresponded to increased infiltrati

103 activity of the elicited antibodies, and the protective efficacy elicited in mice immunized with the

104 ve examined infectivity, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy following infection with a replicati

105 The protective efficacy generated by immunization with this

106 opulation characteristics that may relate to protective efficacy have received little attention.

107 Prior Ab studies have assessed protective efficacy, Id structure and binding to capsula

108 ch anti-HIV-1 envelope Abs can contribute to protective efficacy.IMPORTANCE Anti-V2 antibodies (Abs)

109 , and desiccation, were determined and their protective efficacies in animals confirmed.

110 a formal neurovirulence test, as well as its protective efficacy in a monkey challenge model.

111 terleukin-17 secretion and provided a higher protective efficacy in a mouse challenge model than did

112 Both vectors provided significant protective efficacy in a mouse tumor xenograft model.

113 appropriate for assessing immunogenicity and protective efficacy in animal models and in human trials

114 types and reported preliminary data on their protective efficacy in animals.

115 coli, combined in a vaccine, and tested for protective efficacy in C57BL/6 mice.

116 V glycoproteins for their immunogenicity and protective efficacy in cotton rats and African green mon

117 vaccine candidate, which showed significant protective efficacy in endemic populations in Guinea.

118 date vaccines were immunogenic and exhibited protective efficacy in ferrets.

119 inants were evaluated for immunogenicity and protective efficacy in hamsters, which support a high le

120 aluated for replication, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in hamsters.

121 with AS04 has the potential to provide broad protective efficacy in human subjects.

122 essential to achieve immediate and sustained protective efficacy in humans.

123 d traditional tools, this study compares the protective efficacy in macaques of an intrarespiratory l

124 ests that the bivalent HPV-16/18 vaccine has protective efficacy in men.

125 lts demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in mice and nonhuman primates (NHPs)

126 bition of RSV infection and propagation, and protective efficacy in mice.

127 cific antibodies and compromised the vaccine protective efficacy in mice.

128 icity, opsonic killing activity, and passive protective efficacy in mice.

129 the gastrointestinal mucosa and for vaccine protective efficacy in mice.

130 evaluated for virulence, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in mice.

131 within the envelope glycoprotein and exhibit protective efficacy in mice.

132 own ebolavirus species in vitro and show its protective efficacy in mouse models of ebolavirus infect

133 tional analogs of P7C3 correlates with their protective efficacy in MPTP-mediated neurotoxicity.

134 This trial compared the protective efficacy in older adults of a quadrivalent, r

135 experiments proved this vaccine candidate's protective efficacy in pigs and the promise to control c

136 ) were selected and evaluated for safety and protective efficacy in pigs by comparison with a commerc

137 Candidate ZIKV vaccines have shown protective efficacy in preclinical studies carried out i

138 s study, we evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy in rabbits of multiple antigenic pep

139 We tested the immunogenicity and protective efficacy in rhesus macaques of one dose of MV

140 d Tat vaccines have failed to elicit similar protective efficacy in rhesus macaques.

141 oproteins (VSVDeltaG/Dual) and evaluated its protective efficacy in the common lethal Syrian hamster

142 nt in native conformation that provide cross-protective efficacy in the prevention of meningococcal d

143 ing whether there may, or may not, have been protective efficacy in the RV144 vaccine trial have impo

144 er of immunizations with CTB could influence protective efficacy in the suckling mouse model of chole

145 formed lactobacilli were evaluated for their protective efficacy in the Transwell model.

146 irus vectors afforded substantially improved protective efficacy in this challenge model.

147 We then tested its protective efficacy in two animal models, mice and guine

148 cles (VRP) was tested for immunogenicity and protective efficacy in weanling mice in the presence and

149 on with the recombinant Ad5/3 vector induces protective efficacy indistinguishable from that elicited

150 This protective efficacy is estimated to result from a 96.1%

151 To assess protective efficacy, juvenile macaques were vaccinated w

152 Although both vaccines demonstrated cross-protective efficacy, LAIV induced higher levels of nasal

153 To demonstrate feasibility and protective efficacy, nucleoside-modified mRNAs encoding

154 We found that the loss of protective efficacy observed with FW/50 was associated w

155 with P. berghei sporozoites to determine the protective efficacies of different vaccine regimens.

156 onatal gnotobiotic pig model to evaluate the protective efficacies of primary infection, P particles,

157 comparison of the immunogenic properties and protective efficacies of the different forms of hRSV F w

158 This provided a ranking of the protective efficacies of the initial panel of intracellu

159 moderate-transmission site, mefloquine had a protective efficacy of 38.1% (95% CI 11.8-56.5, p=0.008)

160 PEP provided a protective efficacy of 58.5% (95% confidence interval [C

161 ompared in vitro and in vivo the potency and protective efficacy of 5C4 and the murine precursor of p

162 Protective efficacy of 63% (P = .03) and 88% (P = .002)

163 The objective was to evaluate the protective efficacy of a bivalent, recombinant vesicular

164 ansgenic (HLA Tg) rabbit model to assess the protective efficacy of a human CD8(+) T cell epitope-bas

165 We evaluated, in this model, the protective efficacy of a live attenuated tetravalent DEN

166 The immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a live attenuated vaccine consist

167 malaria-naive adults in order to define the protective efficacy of a malaria vaccine and thus guide

168 Here, we examined the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a recombinant GBS BCP (rBCP), an

169 We investigated the scope for enhancing the protective efficacy of a single dose adenovirus-vectored

170 e therefore evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a single immunization of chimeric

171 We evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a split-virion H7N9 vaccine with

172 In this study, we evaluated the protective efficacy of adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vec

173 Here, we examined the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of an aerosolized human parainfluenz

174 used an aged mouse model to investigate the protective efficacy of an attenuated WNV, the nonstructu

175 the dose-related safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of an experimental trivalent influen

176 respiratory tract, allowing us to assess the protective efficacy of an H5N1 LAIV against highly patho

177 ate its ability to significantly improve the protective efficacy of an inactivated influenza virus va

178 udy provides the very first evidence for the protective efficacy of an intravaginal microbicide/vacci

179 In germfree mice, there was no protective efficacy of antibody to PNAG due to the lack

180 ioluminescent imaging can be used to monitor protective efficacy of attenuated parasite immunizations

181 influences of PEM on the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of avian influenza A(H5N1) vaccine.

182 Our results demonstrate the striking protective efficacy of BcfA-mediated immunization, there

183 rial antigen Ag85A to boost may increase the protective efficacy of BCG.

184 ding candidate vaccine designed to boost the protective efficacy of BCG.

185 ting infection of mucosal tissues, while the protective efficacy of bnAbs targeting V1-V2 glycans (PG

186 ich combined the broad-spectrum activity and protective efficacy of both antibodies.

187 he Salmonellagtr repertoire may confound the protective efficacy of broad-ranging Salmonella lipopoly

188 immunization approaches and help improve the protective efficacy of candidate HIV-1 vaccines.

189 Little is known about the protective efficacy of cellular immunity.

190 current study, we examined the long-lasting protective efficacy of chimeric VLPs (cVLPs) containing

191 lonization to examine the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of EtpA.

192 s end, we demonstrate the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of FILORAB1, a recombinant, bivalent

193 The immunogenicity and protective efficacy of four different tetravalent formul

194 the mouse model, we compared the inhibitory/protective efficacy of four mouse monoclonal antibodies

195 We show here that the protective efficacy of FTK-OspA is indistinguishable fro

196 te the presence of Fc N-glycans enhances the protective efficacy of h-13F6, and that mAbs manufacture

197 We also evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of H5N1, H6N1, H7N3, and H9N2 ca vac

198 These data demonstrate the protective efficacy of HIV-1 mosaic antigens and suggest

199 the CD4-mimetic compounds might increase the protective efficacy of HIV-1 vaccines.

200 re the animal model of choice for evaluating protective efficacy of HIV/SIV vaccine candidates and th

201 PD-1 also limited the protective efficacy of HMPV epitope-specific peptide vac

202 del for investigating the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of human CD8(+) T cell epitope-based

203 s in A/JCr and C57BL/6J mice showed relative protective efficacy of IgG1, IgG2a >> IgG3.

204 In contrast to the marked protective efficacy of immune serum on reinfection, the

205 before IVAG challenge with SIV decreases the protective efficacy of infection with SHIV89.6.

206 The protective efficacy of influenza VLP vaccination was low

207 is study, we examined the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of influenza VLPs (H1N1 A/PR/8/34) a

208 ted role of the microbiota in modulating the protective efficacy of intranasal vaccination through th

209 tudy, we investigated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of IpaB and IpaD administered intrad

210 We examined the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of IpaB and IpaD, alone or combined,

211 n in ferrets of the immunogenicity and cross-protective efficacy of isogenic mammalian cell-grown, li

212 The protective efficacy of mAbs to Cryptococcus neoformans g

213 and phenotypic specialization are linked to protective efficacy of memory T cells against reinfectio

214 oliovirus transmission in Uttar Pradesh, the protective efficacy of mOPV1 was estimated to be 30% (95

215 cause chemical O deglycosylation reduced the protective efficacy of MP immunization.

216 We evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of MVA encoding influenza virus hema

217 potential to improve the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of new and existing neonatal vaccine

218 ctive, and efficient method to determine the protective efficacy of new vaccines on pneumococcal colo

219 that the Hu-mouse can be used to predict the protective efficacy of novel tuberculosis vaccines/strat

220 We aimed to assess the safety and protective efficacy of PfSPZ Vaccine against naturally a

221 hat AGMs can be useful for evaluation of the protective efficacy of pLAIV.

222 ipid moieties enhance the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of pneumococcal TH17 antigens throug

223 different VEEV immunogens and evaluated the protective efficacy of purified preparations of the resu

224 The immunogenicity and protective efficacy of purified RSV F nanoparticles was

225 vaccine priming did not further improve the protective efficacy of rAd5HVR48 vectors in this system.

226 The protective efficacy of recombinant PotD was evaluated by

227 Evaluation of the protective efficacy of recombinant T-cell-reactive prote

228 n current study, we evaluated the safety and protective efficacy of recombinant unglycosylated RSV G

229 Here we explore the protective efficacy of replication-incompetent, recombin

230 s may be a rapid approach for increasing the protective efficacy of seasonal vaccines in response to

231 The protective efficacy of Sin85B was initially assessed by

232 However, the protective efficacy of such global HIV-1 vaccine antigen

233 To increase the protective efficacy of such monoclonal antibodies, we em

234 Here, we report the protective efficacy of Sudan virus (SUDV)- and Ebola vir

235 In this article, we review data for the protective efficacy of the 2 new rotavirus vaccines, wit

236 Finally, the in vivo protective efficacy of the Abs in mice was studied.

237 end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA show cross-protective efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine against fou

238 To test this assumption, changes in the protective efficacy of the immune response to B. burgdor

239 We assessed the cross-protective efficacy of the malaria vaccine and inferred

240 The cross-variant protective efficacy of the P particle vaccine was compar

241 Compared with alum, the protective efficacy of the pandemic H1N1 influenza (pH1N

242 The protective efficacy of the recombinant vaccines, with or

243 udy, we evaluated in parallel the safety and protective efficacy of the RSV A2 recombinant unglycosyl

244 e current study, we evaluated the safety and protective efficacy of the RSV A2 recombinant unglycosyl

245 urine CpG ODN 1826 on the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae-expr

246 aluated the differential immune response and protective efficacy of the Sal-Ag vaccine against challe

247 We compared the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the soluble and refolded forms of

248 However, the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the three forms of F have not hit

249 ion, the elicited antibody response, and the protective efficacy of the vaccines containing the DNA o

250 enously) revealed a marked difference in the protective efficacy of the various attenuated proviral v

251 vaccine in pigs (60%) and to the homologous protective efficacy of the VLP vaccine in humans (47%).

252 s study was to assess the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the VSV-SRV serotype 2 vaccine pr

253 Here, we evaluated the protective efficacy of the VSVDeltaG/MARVGP-Musoke vacci

254 tions in humans, including the assessment of protective efficacy of therapeutic interventions.

255 To test the protective efficacy of these antigens as vaccine candida

256 The protective efficacy of these responses was assessed by c

257 This difference may be of importance for the protective efficacy of these vaccination approaches agai

258 roteins and evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of these vaccine candidates in mice

259 .2+ T cells are critically important for the protective efficacy of this antigen.

260 The immunogenicity and protective efficacy of this novel vaccine were assessed

261 Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of three Campylobacter jejuni flagel

262 the Th17 adjuvant curdlan, and we tested the protective efficacy of vaccination in a murine model of

263 LR2/6, TLR3, and TLR9) greatly increased the protective efficacy of vaccination with an HIV envelope

264 of tuberculous meningitis, we evaluated the protective efficacy of vaccination with the recombinant

265 e boosting antigen impacts the magnitude and protective efficacy of vaccine-elicited immune responses

266 tamin A deficiency on the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of vaccines has not been defined pre

267 osa pneumonia to assess the contributions to protective efficacy of various bacterial antigens and ho

268 The protective efficacy of various immunization regimes corr

269 We previously had demonstrated the protective efficacy of virus-like particle (VLP)-based v

270 Its long-term protective efficacy on primary liver cancer (PLC) and ot

271 d with decreased risk of neonatal mortality (protective efficacy [PE] 18%, 95% CI 4-30; incidence rat

272 tected against moderate-to-severe diarrhoea (protective efficacy [PE] 75%, p=0.0070) and severe diarr

273 g concentrations (pharmacokinetics [PK]) and protective efficacy (pharmacodynamics [PD]).

274 To directly assess ADCC protective efficacy, six neonatal macaques were infused

275 For both measures of protective efficacy, the vaccine-microbicide combination

276 It induces modest levels of protective efficacy, thought to be mediated primarily by

277 adjuvants based on their immune profiles and protective efficacy to inform a rational development of

278 To compare its protective efficacy to that of VRC01 in vivo, we perform

279 ruses influenced HAI-specific antibodies and protective efficacy using a broadly protective vaccine c

280 ro effects on motility, opsonic killing, and protective efficacy using a mouse pneumonia model.

281 In this study, we present data on safety and protective efficacy using sporozoites with deletions of

282 ated whole-virus vaccines and compared their protective efficacy versus that of antigens from positiv

283 Protective efficacy was 58% (95% CI, 45%-67%, p<0.001) f

284 The protective efficacy was 70% against Shigella flexneri an

285 Protective efficacy was confirmed with DNA vaccines for

286 Protective efficacy was correlated with increased cleara

287 Protective efficacy was dependent on dose and regimen.

288 Protective efficacy was determined by comparing the clea

289 Protective efficacy was determined by vaccination of BAL

290 The Ab providing the greatest in vivo protective efficacy was directed against the A chain.

291 bining R21 with TRAP-based viral vectors and protective efficacy was significantly enhanced.

292 imeric Plasmodium yoelii proteins to enhance protective efficacy, we designed PvRMC-CSP, a recombinan

293 While studying protective efficacy, we found unexpectedly that old (21-

294 Acquired immunity and protective efficacy were also assayed in the mouse lung

295 e molecularly defined lipopeptides and their protective efficacy were assessed, in terms of virus rep

296 FdU) and examined their immunogenicities and protective efficacies when administered alone or followe

297 Several of our antibodies showed protective efficacy when tested in a novel murine challe

298 n, promoting thermal resilience and enhanced protective efficacy, which may be important in its use a

299 30, has since been shown to also demonstrate protective efficacy with a delayed treatment start.

300 Protective efficacy with microneedles was found to be si