Sigrid Gouma1, Hinke I Ten Hulscher2, Tessa M Schurink-van 't Klooster3, Hester E de Melker4, Greet J Boland5, Patricia Kaaijk6, Cécile A C M van Els7, Marion P G Koopmans8, Rob S van Binnendijk9. 1. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Department of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: sigrid.gouma@rivm.nl. 2. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hinke.ten.hulscher@rivm.nl. 3. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: tessa.schurink@rivm.nl. 4. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hester.de.melker@rivm.nl. 5. Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: G.J.Boland@umcutrecht.nl. 6. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: patricia.kaaijk@rivm.nl. 7. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cecile.van.els@rivm.nl. 8. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Department of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.koopmans@erasmusmc.nl. 9. Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: rob.van.binnendijk@rivm.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Similar to other recent mumps genotype G outbreaks worldwide, most mumps patients during the recent mumps genotype G outbreaks in the Netherlands had received 2 doses of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine during childhood. Here, we investigate the capacity of vaccine-induced antibodies to neutralize wild type mumps virus strains, including mumps virus genotype G. METHODS: In this study, we tested 105 pre-outbreak serum samples from students who had received 2 MMR vaccine doses and who had no mumps virus infection (n=76), symptomatic mumps virus infection (n=10) or asymptomatic mumps virus infection (n=19) during the mumps outbreaks. In all samples, mumps-specific IgG concentrations were measured by multiplex immunoassay and neutralization titers were measured against the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain and against wild type genotype G and genotype D mumps virus strains. RESULTS: The correlation between mumps-specific IgG concentrations and neutralization titers against Jeryl Lynn was poor, which suggests that IgG concentrations do not adequately represent immunological protection against mumps virus infection by antibody neutralization. Pre-outbreak neutralization titers in infected persons were significantly lower against genotype G than against the vaccine strain. Furthermore, antibody neutralization of wild type mumps virus genotype G and genotype D was significantly reduced in pre-outbreak samples from infected persons as compared with non-infected persons. No statistically significant difference was found for the vaccine strain. The sensitivity/specificity ratio was largest for neutralization of the genotype G strain as compared with the genotype D strain and the vaccine strain. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced neutralization of wild type mumps virus strains in MMR vaccinated persons prior to infection indicates that pre-outbreak mumps virus neutralization is partly strain-specific and that neutralization differs between infected and non-infected persons. Therefore, we recommend the use of wild type mumps virus neutralization assays as preferred tool for surveillance of protection against mumps virus infection.
BACKGROUND: Similar to other recent mumps genotype G outbreaks worldwide, most mumps patients during the recent mumps genotype G outbreaks in the Netherlands had received 2 doses of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine during childhood. Here, we investigate the capacity of vaccine-induced antibodies to neutralize wild type mumps virus strains, including mumps virus genotype G. METHODS: In this study, we tested 105 pre-outbreak serum samples from students who had received 2 MMR vaccine doses and who had no mumps virus infection (n=76), symptomatic mumps virus infection (n=10) or asymptomatic mumps virus infection (n=19) during the mumps outbreaks. In all samples, mumps-specific IgG concentrations were measured by multiplex immunoassay and neutralization titers were measured against the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain and against wild type genotype G and genotype D mumps virus strains. RESULTS: The correlation between mumps-specific IgG concentrations and neutralization titers against Jeryl Lynn was poor, which suggests that IgG concentrations do not adequately represent immunological protection against mumps virus infection by antibody neutralization. Pre-outbreak neutralization titers in infected persons were significantly lower against genotype G than against the vaccine strain. Furthermore, antibody neutralization of wild type mumps virus genotype G and genotype D was significantly reduced in pre-outbreak samples from infected persons as compared with non-infected persons. No statistically significant difference was found for the vaccine strain. The sensitivity/specificity ratio was largest for neutralization of the genotype G strain as compared with the genotype D strain and the vaccine strain. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced neutralization of wild type mumps virus strains in MMR vaccinated persons prior to infection indicates that pre-outbreak mumps virus neutralization is partly strain-specific and that neutralization differs between infected and non-infected persons. Therefore, we recommend the use of wild type mumps virus neutralization assays as preferred tool for surveillance of protection against mumps virus infection.
Authors: Mohammed Ata Ur Rasheed; Carole J Hickman; Marcia McGrew; Sun Bae Sowers; Sara Mercader; Amy Hopkins; Vickie Grimes; Tianwei Yu; Jens Wrammert; Mark J Mulligan; William J Bellini; Paul A Rota; Walter A Orenstein; Rafi Ahmed; Srilatha Edupuganti Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Sigrid Gouma; Tessa Vermeire; Steven Van Gucht; Lennart Martens; Veronik Hutse; Jeroen Cremer; Paul A Rota; Geert Leroux-Roels; Marion Koopmans; Rob van Binnendijk; Elien Vandermarliere Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jelle de Wit; Maarten E Emmelot; Martien C M Poelen; Josien Lanfermeijer; Wanda G H Han; Cécile A C M van Els; Patricia Kaaijk Journal: J Virol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 5.103