Table 2 Vaccine technologies that have been used in enterovirus vaccine development
From: Enteroviruses: epidemic potential, challenges and opportunities with vaccines
Vaccine technology | Antigen | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
Inactive virus | Whole virus | Efficient activation of immunity [158] | Expensive to produce. Risk of insufficient inactivation of the virus |
Weakened virus | Mutated virus or recombined with another weakened virus | Efficient mucosal, humoral and T-cell responses [174] | Risk of reversion back to virulent form and causing new epidemics [175]. Not recommended for risk groups |
Virus-like particle (VLP) | VP1-4 co-expressed with 3CD | Immunogenicity may need to be enhanced with adjuvants [177] | |
Recombinant protein / subunit / peptide | VP1-4/subunits/ peptides from VP1-4 | Safe, easy to produce [178] | Low immunogenicity, cost-efficiency varies |
Vector | VP1-4 | Efficient immunogen [179] | Pre-existing immunity for the vector [180] |
DNA | VP1 | Quick and easy to produce [181] | Efficient administration method is needed, risk of genome integration |
mRNA | VP1-4 and 3CD | Quick and easy to produce, high neutralizing antibody titres [182] | Short immune response, low mucosal immunity |
Exosome | VP1 | Efficient T-cell and cytotoxic T-cell response [183] | Limited availability of studies about these vaccines, low production rate |