Explore the vast range of titles available.

As our understanding of genetics increases, its application to criminal justice becomes more significant. This timely book examines the use of genetic information both in criminal investigations and during the trial process. It discusses current scientific understanding and considers some potential legal, ethical and sociological issues with the use of genetic information. The author draws together debates from scientists, ethicists, sociologists and lawyers in order to understand how the criminal justice system currently reacts, and ought to react, to the new challenges presented by genetic evidence. She asks the important question of where priorities should lie: whether with society's desire to be protected from crime, or with an individual's desire to be protected from an unwanted intrusion into his or her genome. Topics include rights of privacy and consent in obtaining DNA samples, evidentiary issues in court, the impact of genetic evidence on punishment theory and sentencing, and genetic discrimination. This book will be of use to criminal and medical law students, along with academics, practitioners and policymakers interested in exploring the various criminal law issues in relation to genetics. It will also be of interest to criminal justice, philosophy, ethics, sociology and psychology students and academics looking explore the legal issues involved in such a topic.-- Source other than Library of Congress.

The Zika virus epidemic and associated congenital infections have prompted rapid vaccine development. We assessed two new DNA vaccines expressing premembrane and envelope Zika virus structural proteins. We did two phase 1, randomised, open-label trials involving healthy adult volunteers. The VRC 319 trial, done in three centres, assessed plasmid VRC5288 (Zika virus and Japanese encephalitis virus chimera), and the VRC 320, done in one centre, assessed plasmid VRC5283 (wild-type Zika virus). Eligible participants were aged 18–35 years in VRC19 and 18–50 years in VRC 320. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 by a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the study statistician. All participants received intramuscular injection of 4 mg vaccine. In VRC 319 participants were assigned to receive vaccinations via needle and syringe at 0 and 8 weeks, 0 and 12 weeks, 0, 4, and 8 weeks, or 0, 4, and 20 weeks. In VRC 320 participants were assigned to receive vaccinations at 0, 4, and 8 weeks via single-dose needle and syringe injection in one deltoid or split-dose needle and syringe or needle-free injection with the Stratis device (Pharmajet, Golden, CO, USA) in each deltoid. Both trials followed up volunteers for 24 months for the primary endpoint of safety, assessed as local and systemic reactogenicity in the 7 days after each vaccination and all adverse events in the 28 days after each vaccination. The secondary endpoint in both trials was immunogenicity 4 weeks after last vaccination. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02840487 and NCT02996461. VRC 319 enrolled 80 participants (20 in each group), and VRC 320 enrolled 45 participants (15 in each group). One participant in VRC 319 and two in VRC 320 withdrew after one dose of vaccine, but were included in the safety analyses. Both vaccines were safe and well tolerated. All local and systemic symptoms were mild to moderate. In both studies, pain and tenderness at the injection site was the most frequent local symptoms (37 [46%] of 80 participants in VRC 319 and 36 [80%] of 45 in VRC 320) and malaise and headache were the most frequent systemic symptoms (22 [27%] and 18 [22%], respectively, in VRC 319 and 17 [38%] and 15 [33%], respectively, in VRC 320). For VRC5283, 14 of 14 (100%) participants who received split-dose vaccinations by needle-free injection had detectable positive antibody responses, and the geometric mean titre of 304 was the highest across all groups in both trials. VRC5283 was well tolerated and has advanced to phase 2 efficacy testing. Intramural Research Program of the Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant's last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV.

Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV.

Background. DNA vaccines have been very poorly immunogenic in humans but have been an effective priming modality in prime-boost regimens. Methods to increase the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines are needed. Methods. HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) studies 070 and 080 were multicenter, randomized, clinical trials. The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) PENNVAX ® -B DNA vaccine (PV) is a mixture of 3 expression plasmids encoding HIV-1 Clade B Env, Gag, and Pol. The interleukin 12 (IL-12) DNA plasmid expresses human IL-12 proteins p35 and p40. Study subjects were healthy HIV-1-uninfected adults 18-50 years old. Four intramuscular vaccinations were given in HVTN 070, and 3 intramuscular vaccinations were followed by electroporation in HVTN 080. Cellular immune responses were measured by intracellular cytokine staining after stimulation with HIV-1 peptide pools. Results. Vaccination was safe and well tolerated. Administration of PV plus IL-12 with electroporation had a significant dose-sparing effect and provided immunogenicity superior to that observed in the trial without electroporation, despite fewer vaccinations. A total of 71.4% of individuals vaccinated with PV plus IL-12 plasmid with electroporation developed either a CD4⁺ or CD8⁺ T-cell response after the second vaccination, and 88.9% developed a CD4⁺ or CD8⁺ T-cell response after the third vaccination. Conclusions. Use of electroporation after PV administration provided superior immunogenicity than delivery without electroporation. This study illustrates the power of combined DNA approaches to generate impressive immune responses in humans.

Ebola virus and Marburg virus cause serious disease outbreaks with high case fatality rates. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two investigational DNA vaccines, one (EBO vaccine) encoding Ebola virus Zaire and Sudan glycoproteins and one (MAR) encoding Marburg virus glycoprotein. RV 247 was a phase 1b, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda to examine the safety and immunogenicity of the EBO and MAR vaccines given individually and concomitantly. Healthy adult volunteers aged 18–50 years were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive three injections of vaccine or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, with vaccine allocations divided equally between three active vaccine groups: EBO vaccine only, MAR vaccine only, and both vaccines. The primary study objective was to investigate the safety and tolerability of the vaccines, as assessed by local and systemic reactogenicity and adverse events. We also assessed immunogenicity on the basis of antibody responses (ELISA) and T-cell responses (ELISpot and intracellular cytokine staining assays) 4 weeks after the third injection. Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00997607. 108 participants were enrolled into the study between Nov 2, 2009, and April 15, 2010. All 108 participants received at least one study injection (including 100 who completed the injection schedule) and were included in safety and tolerability analyses; 107 for whom data were available were included in the immunogenicity analyses. Study injections were well tolerated, with no significant differences in local or systemic reactions between groups. The vaccines elicited antibody and T-cell responses specific to the glycoproteins received and we detected no differences between the separate and concomitant use of the two vaccines. 17 of 30 (57%, 95% CI 37–75) participants in the EBO vaccine group had an antibody response to the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein, as did 14 of 30 (47%, 28–66) in the group that received both vaccines. 15 of 30 (50%, 31–69) participants in the EBO vaccine group had an antibody response to the Ebola Sudan glycoprotein, as did 15 of 30 (50%, 31–69) in the group that received both vaccines. Nine of 29 (31%, 15–51) participants in the MAR vaccine groups had an antibody response to the Marburg glycoprotein, as did seven of 30 (23%, 10–42) in the group that received both vaccines. 19 of 30 (63%, 44–80) participants in the EBO vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein, as did 10 of 30 (33%, 17–53) in the group that received both vaccines. 13 of 30 (43%, 25–63) participants in the EBO vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Ebola Sudan glycoprotein, as did 10 of 30 (33%, 17–53) in the group that received both vaccines. 15 of 29 (52%, 33–71) participants in the MAR vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Marburg glycoprotein, as did 13 of 30 (43%, 25–63) in the group that received both vaccines. This study is the first Ebola or Marburg vaccine trial done in Africa, and the results show that, given separately or together, both vaccines were well tolerated and elicited antigen-specific humoral and cellular immune responses. These findings have contributed to the accelerated development of more potent Ebola virus vaccines that encode the same wild-type glycoprotein antigens as the EBO vaccine, which are being assessed during the 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak in west Africa. US Department of Defense Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program and US National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.

Some insects use endogenous reverse transcriptase (RT) to make variable viral copy DNA (vcDNA) fragments from viral RNA in linear (lvcDNA) and circular (cvcDNA) forms. The latter form is easy to extract selectively. The vcDNA produces small interfering RNA (siRNA) variants that inhibit viral replication via the RNA interference (RNAi) pathway. The vcDNA is also autonomously inserted into the host genome as endogenous viral elements (EVE) that can also result in RNAi. We hypothesized that similar mechanisms occurred in shrimp. We used the insect methods to extract circular viral copy DNA (cvcDNA) from the giant tiger shrimp ( Penaeus monodon ) infected with a virus originally named infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV). Simultaneous injection of the extracted cvcDNA plus IHHNV into whiteleg shrimp ( Penaeus vannamei ) resulted in a significant reduction in IHHNV replication when compared to shrimp injected with IHHNV only. Next generation sequencing (NGS) revealed that the extract contained a mixture of two general IHHNV-cvcDNA types. One showed 98 to 99% sequence identity to GenBank record AF218266 from an extant type of infectious IHHNV. The other type showed 98% sequence identity to GenBank record DQ228358, an EVE formerly called non-infectious IHHNV. The startling discovery that EVE could also give rise to cvcDNA revealed that cvcDNA provided an easy means to identify and characterize EVE in shrimp and perhaps other organisms. These studies open the way for identification, characterization and use of protective cvcDNA as a potential shrimp vaccine and as a tool to identify, characterize and select naturally protective EVE to improve shrimp tolerance to homologous viruses in breeding programs.

Background. H5 DNA priming was previously shown to improve the antibody response to influenza A(H5N1) monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV) among individuals for whom there was a 24-week interval between prime and boost receipt. This study defines the shortest prime-boost interval associated with an improved response to MIV. Methods. We administered H5 DNA followed by MIV at intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, or 24 weeks and compared responses to that of 2 doses of MIV (prime-boost interval, 24 weeks). Results. H5 DNA priming with an MIV boost ≥12 weeks later showed an improved response, with a positive hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titer in 91% of recipients (geometric mean titer [GMT], 141-206), compared with 55%-70% of recipients with an H5 DNA and MIV prime-boost interval of ≥8 weeks (GMT, 51-70) and 44% with an MIV-MIV primeboost interval of 24 weeks (GMT, 27). Conclusion. H5 DNA priming enhances antibody responses after an MIV boost when the prime-boost interval is 12-24 weeks. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01086657.

The addition of plasmid cytokine adjuvants, electroporation, and live attenuated viral vectors may further optimize immune responses to DNA vaccines in heterologous prime-boost combinations. The objective of this study was to test the safety and tolerability of a novel prime-boost vaccine regimen incorporating these strategies with different doses of IL-12 plasmid DNA adjuvant. In a phase 1 study, 88 participants received an HIV-1 multiantigen (gag/pol, env, nef/tat/vif) DNA vaccine (HIV-MAG, 3000 μg) co-administered with IL-12 plasmid DNA adjuvant at 0, 250, 1000, or 1500 μg (N = 22/group) given intramuscularly with electroporation (Ichor TriGrid™ Delivery System device) at 0, 1 and 3 months; followed by attenuated recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus, serotype Indiana, expressing HIV-1 Gag (VSV-Gag), 3.4 ⊆ 107 plaque-forming units (PFU), at 6 months; 12 others received placebo. Injections were in both deltoids at each timepoint. Participants were monitored for safety and tolerability for 15 months. The dose of IL-12 pDNA did not increase pain scores, reactogenicity, or adverse events with the co-administered DNA vaccine, or following the VSV-Gag boost. Injection site pain and reactogenicity were common with intramuscular injections with electroporation, but acceptable to most participants. VSV-Gag vaccine often caused systemic reactogenicity symptoms, including a viral syndrome (in 41%) of fever, chills, malaise/fatigue, myalgia, and headache; and decreased lymphocyte counts 1 day after vaccination. HIV-MAG DNA vaccine given by intramuscular injection with electroporation was safe at all doses of IL-12 pDNA. The VSV-Gag vaccine at this dose was associated with fever and viral symptoms in some participants, but the vaccine regimens were safe and generally well-tolerated. Clinical Trials.gov NCT01578889.

Seasonal influenza results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but the currently licensed inactivated vaccines generally have low vaccine efficacies and could be improved. In this phase 1 clinical trial, we compared seasonal influenza vaccine regimens with different priming strategies, prime-boost intervals, and administration routes to determine the impact of these variables on the resulting antibody response. Between August 17, 2012 and January 25, 2013, four sites enrolled healthy adults 18-70 years of age. Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following vaccination regimens: trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) DNA prime followed by trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost with a 3.5 month interval (DNA-IIV3), IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (IIV3-IIV3), or concurrent DNA and IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (DNA/IIV3-IIV3). Each regimen was additionally stratified by an IIV3 administration route of either intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID). DNA vaccines were administered by a needle-free jet injector (Biojector). Study objectives included evaluating the safety and tolerability of each regimen and measuring the antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI). Three hundred and sixteen subjects enrolled. Local reactogenicity was mild to moderate in severity, with higher frequencies recorded following DNA vaccine administered by Biojector compared to IIV3 by either route (p <0.02 for pain, swelling, and redness) and following IIV3 by ID route compared to IM route (p <0.001 for swelling and redness). Systemic reactogenicity was similar between regimens. Though no overall differences were observed between regimens, the highest titers post boost were observed in the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route and in the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route. All vaccination regimens were found to be safe and tolerable. While there were no overall differences between regimens, the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route, and the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route, showed higher responses compared to the other same-route regimens.