- Email: [email protected]
Vaccine history: The past as prelude to the future
Vaccine 30 (2012) 5299–5301
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Vaccine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vaccine
Editorial
Vaccine history: The past as prelude to the future
The concept underlying vaccines antedated the science we now know as “vaccinology” by hundreds of years if not longer [1]. The widely acknowledged formal history of vaccines began with Jenner’s systematic investigations into the protective effect of cowpox against smallpox in the waning years of the 18th century [2]. Eighty years later Pasteur discovered the process of microbial attenuation and its implications for immunization; shortly thereafter, he demonstrated protection against rabies in humans using such an approach [3]. During the eight decades between Jenner’s landmark work and that of Pasteur, few scientific advances in vaccines—other than the widespread implementation of smallpox vaccination—were forthcoming. But the 19th century witnessed other “events” of more fundamental importance to the fledgling field: the germ theory of disease was proven; the sister sciences of microbiology and immunology were launched; technical advances by Koch and his disciples led to the discovery of numerous specific bacterial causes of distinct infectious diseases; and, at century’s end, a new class of microbes—viruses—were discovered [4]. These revelations would have the salutary effect of galvanizing vaccine science and accelerating the pace of its rapidly evolving history. By the middle of the 20th century, first-generation vaccines had been developed to address many of the most lethal pathogens of the day. Toxoid vaccines brought diphtheria and tetanus under control. On the heels of partially successful, killed bacterial vaccines for cholera and typhoid, the first inactivated viral vaccines—against influenza—were invented. A live, attenuated vaccine—17D—proved to be successful in preventing yellow fever in humans, earning one of its creators the only Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology given for the development of a virus vaccine [5]. To a large extent, advances in vaccines were—and remain—inextricably linked to and dependent on those in other scientific disciplines. Tetanus and diphtheria toxoid vaccines evolved directly from early discoveries in the developing field of immunology; the related field of adjuvant chemistry evolved in parallel. Influenza and yellow fever vaccines only became possible with the advent of laboratory techniques for the cultivation of viruses on the chorioallantoic membranes of chick embryos in the 1930s [6]. Within 15 years, a series of incremental, accumulating advances in tissue culture techniques culminated in the first, successful, ex vivo cultivation of poliovirus in non-neural tissue [7]. The effect of this discovery on the science of vaccines would be immediate and profound, leading—five years later—to an effective polio vaccine and ushering in the “golden age” of vaccines [8]. Following the success with polio a series of vaccines targeting important diseases of childhood—measles, mumps, rubella,
0264-410X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.060
and varicella—were developed and proven to be broadly effective. But into the 1970s, effective vaccines against some of the most lethal bacterial pathogens—pneumococcus, meningococcus, and H. influenzae type b (Hib)—remained elusive. The key to finding the correlate of immune protection for these agents required a thorough re-examination of polysaccharide immunochemistry—work initially done more than a half a century earlier by Avery and Heidelberger at the Rockefeller Institute [9]. Their investigations into the “specific soluble substance”—pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide—led to clinical trials of first generation pneumococcal vaccines, a line of vaccine research that essentially ceased with the meteoric rise of antibacterial chemotherapy in the 1940s [10]. However, as is well documented, bacterial resistance to novel antibacterial drugs occurred rapidly, reinforcing the need for preventive vaccines [11]. The last quarter of the 20th century witnessed the development of effective, first-generation, multivalent, pneumococcal and meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines and an effective Hib vaccine [12]. The development of conjugate vaccine technology—itself originally derived from Landsteiner’s basic work in immunochemistry at the turn of the century—led to advancedgeneration polysaccharide vaccines that have since shown a better likelihood of addressing some of the gaps in immunogenicity and durability of response of the earlier generation vaccines. More recent approaches based on novel platforms have engendered vaccines against hepatitis B, a recombinant subunit product; rotavirus, using bovine-human reassortants; and human papillomavirus, through virus-like particles. New, innovative strategies have been developed to attempt to address some of the shortcomings of current vaccines. For example, Group B meningococcus, a major cause of sporadic and epidemic disease throughout the world, continues to pose a dilemma to vaccinologists due to its molecular mimicry of certain polysialic moieties found on host tissues. “Reverse vaccinology,” an informatics-based approach aimed at identifying genomic sequences coding for immunologic targets [13], has yielded a candidate group B meningococcal vaccine that has been found to be safe and immunogenic against multiple strains in children and adults and has also shown early promise in infants [14]. More recently, vaccinomics and systems biology approaches to understanding and developing new vaccines have been developed as answers to problems in discovery of new vaccine candidates and as part of a “personalized vaccinology” approach to vaccine discovery and use [15–17]. The history of vaccines, now entering its third full century, is still rapidly evolving. Although much of it remains to be written,
5300
Editorial / Vaccine 30 (2012) 5299–5301
this history informs the future of vaccine science in several, important ways. It reminds us that progress in this field, as with that in other areas of biological and physical science, generally occurs incrementally, based on past achievements. This represents the “normal science” described by Kuhn in his landmark treatise on scientific discovery [18]. However, periodically, “game-changing” discoveries occur through the accumulation of these incremental advances, and it is these events that cause shifts in extant scientific paradigms, propelling the field forward. Even in its condensed history as compared with other areas of medical science, vaccinology has experienced a number of such “game-changing” events. Jenner’s systematic study of cowpox; Pasteur’s serendipitous discovery of microbial attenuation and his experiments with anthrax and rabies vaccines; von Behring’s and Ehrlich’s discoveries of antitoxin and toxoids, respectively; the cultivation of measles and polioviruses ex vivo; the recognition of polysaccharides as determinants of antigenic specificity for certain pathogens by Avery, Heidelberger, and later by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research [10]; and the development of a subunit vaccine—hepatitis B—that prevents a form of cancer [19] all qualify, among many others, as critical “moments” that led to paradigm shifts in scientific thinking. By understanding the kinetics of such processes, today’s vaccinologists gain insight and perspective on how the field has evolved, the factors that influenced its progress, and where it may be headed. Vaccine history teaches that advances in vaccines are closely tied to the development of new and improved technologies, themselves often derived from other, related fields. Vaccine science made little progress from Jenner’s time to the latter part of the 19th century. It was only after Koch had defined a laboratory framework within which to understand the etiologic role of specific microbial organisms in specific disease states that rapid progress ensued. Similarly, advances in developing vaccines against toxinbased infections awaited technological advances in the nascent fields of immunology and adjuvant chemistry. The development of vaccines for some of the most important viral disease scourges of childhood required first the discovery of viruses, in the last decade of the 19th century, followed by another half-century of incremental technical advances in tissue culture—derived from the fields of zoology, embryology, surgery, engineering, and pathology—before culminating in the ability to cultivate viruses in vitro. From there, the path to vaccines was a straight line. The study of the history of vaccines provides insights into how today’s vaccinologists might approach new and lingering problems in infectious diseases. By understanding how the field has evolved, innovative strategies—informed by novel technologies—can be pursued and applied towards the development of safe and effective vaccines against chronic infections, highly variable pathogens, or non-infectious diseases such as cancer. Like our predecessors, today’s vaccinologists must learn from the history of vaccine science, sampling liberally from applicable data. However, we must also stand ready to incorporate new concepts and new technologies—such as vaccinomics and systems biology—towards the discovery of new vaccines [17,20]. In order to fully realize the next “golden age” of vaccinology, we must not only embrace such new paradigms, but also continue to reflect on how we arrived here. Such reflections on the past are critical as we move from “vaccinology I” to “vaccinology II” in considering how vaccines are devised and deployed [21]. Knowledge of past approaches and solutions can inform new approaches, while at the same time causing us to leave currently cherished scientific notions. For example, much of early vaccinology was characterized by an “isolate-inactivateinject” paradigm. While considerable progress was made on this
level, it is a clearly insufficient approach to developing vaccines against hyper-variable viruses such as HIV, HCV, and others. Importantly, the history of the public’s use and acceptance of vaccines is another historical element critical to understanding today’s antivaccine movement [22] and the current attempts globally to protect the public health in terms of high levels of vaccine coverage and attempts to eliminate (measles) and eradicate (polio) current scourges. A very practical side to vaccine history has also become apparent. With the success of vaccines in controlling outbreaks of disease have come “success induced” and often unanticipated issues. The widespread use of vaccines against previously common childhood viral illnesses, such as measles and rubella, has prevented regular epidemics of disease such that parents and the public no longer appreciate the considerable morbidity and mortality caused by these diseases. This, in turn, leads to a laissez-faire attitude toward the importance and urgency in using these vaccines to ensure high coverage rates. For similar reasons, young physicians and nurses are no longer familiar with the clinical presentation of these diseases and are often unaware of their morbidity and mortality and the need for high vaccine coverage rates. While no one entity can solve these issues, we have devised a practical response. A new section, entitled “The History of Vaccinology,” will be a regular feature of our journal. This section has an appointed Associate Editor, Dr. Andrew Artenstein, who will craft, shepherd, and build this new and important section. In combination with another new section, “Visual Vaccinology,” we intend to include visuals (pictures, graphs, etc.) that will illustrate past and current vaccine development, the diseases themselves, and applications to current issues in vaccinology. We believe these new sections will provide important context as prelude to the future. We invite manuscripts, ideas, and your thoughts as we launch these exciting sections. Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose regarding the manuscript. References [1] Artenstein AW. Vaccinology in context: the historical burden of infectious diseases. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [2] Jenner E. An inquiry into the causes and effects of the variolae vaccine: a disease discovered in some of the western counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and known by the name cox pox. Birmingham, AL: Classics of Medicine Library; 1978. [3] Debre P. Louis Pasteur. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1994. [4] Opal SM. A brief history of microbiology and immunology. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [5] Norrby E. Yellow fever and Max Theiler: the only Nobel Prize a virus vaccine. J Exp Med 2007;204(November (12)): for 2779–84. [6] Goodpasture EW, Woodruff AM, Buddingh GJ. The cultivation of vaccine and other viruses in the chorioallantoic membrane of chick embryos. Science 1931;74(October (1919)):371–2. [7] Enders JF, Weller TH, Robbins FC. Cultivation of the lansing strain of poliomyelitis virus in cultures of various human embryonic tissues. Science 1949;109(January (2822)):85–7. [8] Poland GA, Oberg AL. Vaccinomics and bioinformatics: accelerants for the next golden age of vaccinology. Vaccine 2010;28(April (20)): 3509–10. [9] Heidelberger M, Avery OT. The soluble specific substance of pneumococcus. J Exp Med 1923;38(June (1)):73–9. [10] Artenstein AW, LaForce FM. Critical episodes in the understanding and control of epidemic meningococcal meningitis. Vaccine 2012;(April). [11] Finland M. Emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. N Engl J Med 1955;253(December (22)):969–79. [12] Artenstein AW. Polysaccharide vaccines. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009.
Editorial / Vaccine 30 (2012) 5299–5301 [13] Pizza M, Scarlato V, Masignani V, Giuliani MM, Arico B, Comanducci M, et al. Identification of vaccine candidates against serogroup B meningococcus by whole-genome sequencing. Science 2000;287(March (5459)):1816–20. [14] Gossger N, Snape MD, Yu LM, Finn A, Bona G, Esposito S, et al. Immunogenicity and tolerability of recombinant serogroup B meningococcal vaccine administered with or without routine infant vaccinations according to different immunization schedules: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2012;307(February (6)):573–82. [15] Haralambieva IH, Poland GA. Vaccinomics, predictive vaccinology and the future of vaccine development. Future Microbiol 2010;5(December):1757–60. [16] Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Kennedy RB, Haralambieva IH, Jacobson RM. Vaccinomics and a new paradigm for the development of preventive vaccines against viral infections. Omics 2011;15(9):625–36. [17] Poland GA, Kennedy RB, Ovsyannikova IG. Vaccinomics and personalized vaccinology: is science leading us toward a new path of directed vaccine development and discovery? PLoS Pathogens 2011;7(12.). [18] Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1996. [19] Blumberg BS. Hepatitis B. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [20] Oberg AL, Kennedy RB, Li P, Ovsyannikova IG, Poland GA. Systems biology approaches to new vaccine development. Curr Opin Immunol 2011; (May). [21] Poland GA, Hollingsworth JR. From Science II to Vaccinology II: a new epistemology. Vaccine 2011;29(February (8)):1527–8. [22] Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med 2011;364(January (2)):97–9.
5301
Associate Editor Andrew W. Artenstein ∗ Department of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States Editor-in-Chief Gregory A. Poland Mayo Vaccine Research Group and Program in Translational Immunovirology and Biodefense, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, 111 Brewster St., Pawtucket, RI 02860, United States. Tel.: +1 401 729 3100; fax: +1 401 729 3282. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.W. Artenstein)
12 June 2012
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Vaccine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vaccine
Editorial
Vaccine history: The past as prelude to the future
The concept underlying vaccines antedated the science we now know as “vaccinology” by hundreds of years if not longer [1]. The widely acknowledged formal history of vaccines began with Jenner’s systematic investigations into the protective effect of cowpox against smallpox in the waning years of the 18th century [2]. Eighty years later Pasteur discovered the process of microbial attenuation and its implications for immunization; shortly thereafter, he demonstrated protection against rabies in humans using such an approach [3]. During the eight decades between Jenner’s landmark work and that of Pasteur, few scientific advances in vaccines—other than the widespread implementation of smallpox vaccination—were forthcoming. But the 19th century witnessed other “events” of more fundamental importance to the fledgling field: the germ theory of disease was proven; the sister sciences of microbiology and immunology were launched; technical advances by Koch and his disciples led to the discovery of numerous specific bacterial causes of distinct infectious diseases; and, at century’s end, a new class of microbes—viruses—were discovered [4]. These revelations would have the salutary effect of galvanizing vaccine science and accelerating the pace of its rapidly evolving history. By the middle of the 20th century, first-generation vaccines had been developed to address many of the most lethal pathogens of the day. Toxoid vaccines brought diphtheria and tetanus under control. On the heels of partially successful, killed bacterial vaccines for cholera and typhoid, the first inactivated viral vaccines—against influenza—were invented. A live, attenuated vaccine—17D—proved to be successful in preventing yellow fever in humans, earning one of its creators the only Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology given for the development of a virus vaccine [5]. To a large extent, advances in vaccines were—and remain—inextricably linked to and dependent on those in other scientific disciplines. Tetanus and diphtheria toxoid vaccines evolved directly from early discoveries in the developing field of immunology; the related field of adjuvant chemistry evolved in parallel. Influenza and yellow fever vaccines only became possible with the advent of laboratory techniques for the cultivation of viruses on the chorioallantoic membranes of chick embryos in the 1930s [6]. Within 15 years, a series of incremental, accumulating advances in tissue culture techniques culminated in the first, successful, ex vivo cultivation of poliovirus in non-neural tissue [7]. The effect of this discovery on the science of vaccines would be immediate and profound, leading—five years later—to an effective polio vaccine and ushering in the “golden age” of vaccines [8]. Following the success with polio a series of vaccines targeting important diseases of childhood—measles, mumps, rubella,
0264-410X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.060
and varicella—were developed and proven to be broadly effective. But into the 1970s, effective vaccines against some of the most lethal bacterial pathogens—pneumococcus, meningococcus, and H. influenzae type b (Hib)—remained elusive. The key to finding the correlate of immune protection for these agents required a thorough re-examination of polysaccharide immunochemistry—work initially done more than a half a century earlier by Avery and Heidelberger at the Rockefeller Institute [9]. Their investigations into the “specific soluble substance”—pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide—led to clinical trials of first generation pneumococcal vaccines, a line of vaccine research that essentially ceased with the meteoric rise of antibacterial chemotherapy in the 1940s [10]. However, as is well documented, bacterial resistance to novel antibacterial drugs occurred rapidly, reinforcing the need for preventive vaccines [11]. The last quarter of the 20th century witnessed the development of effective, first-generation, multivalent, pneumococcal and meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines and an effective Hib vaccine [12]. The development of conjugate vaccine technology—itself originally derived from Landsteiner’s basic work in immunochemistry at the turn of the century—led to advancedgeneration polysaccharide vaccines that have since shown a better likelihood of addressing some of the gaps in immunogenicity and durability of response of the earlier generation vaccines. More recent approaches based on novel platforms have engendered vaccines against hepatitis B, a recombinant subunit product; rotavirus, using bovine-human reassortants; and human papillomavirus, through virus-like particles. New, innovative strategies have been developed to attempt to address some of the shortcomings of current vaccines. For example, Group B meningococcus, a major cause of sporadic and epidemic disease throughout the world, continues to pose a dilemma to vaccinologists due to its molecular mimicry of certain polysialic moieties found on host tissues. “Reverse vaccinology,” an informatics-based approach aimed at identifying genomic sequences coding for immunologic targets [13], has yielded a candidate group B meningococcal vaccine that has been found to be safe and immunogenic against multiple strains in children and adults and has also shown early promise in infants [14]. More recently, vaccinomics and systems biology approaches to understanding and developing new vaccines have been developed as answers to problems in discovery of new vaccine candidates and as part of a “personalized vaccinology” approach to vaccine discovery and use [15–17]. The history of vaccines, now entering its third full century, is still rapidly evolving. Although much of it remains to be written,
5300
Editorial / Vaccine 30 (2012) 5299–5301
this history informs the future of vaccine science in several, important ways. It reminds us that progress in this field, as with that in other areas of biological and physical science, generally occurs incrementally, based on past achievements. This represents the “normal science” described by Kuhn in his landmark treatise on scientific discovery [18]. However, periodically, “game-changing” discoveries occur through the accumulation of these incremental advances, and it is these events that cause shifts in extant scientific paradigms, propelling the field forward. Even in its condensed history as compared with other areas of medical science, vaccinology has experienced a number of such “game-changing” events. Jenner’s systematic study of cowpox; Pasteur’s serendipitous discovery of microbial attenuation and his experiments with anthrax and rabies vaccines; von Behring’s and Ehrlich’s discoveries of antitoxin and toxoids, respectively; the cultivation of measles and polioviruses ex vivo; the recognition of polysaccharides as determinants of antigenic specificity for certain pathogens by Avery, Heidelberger, and later by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research [10]; and the development of a subunit vaccine—hepatitis B—that prevents a form of cancer [19] all qualify, among many others, as critical “moments” that led to paradigm shifts in scientific thinking. By understanding the kinetics of such processes, today’s vaccinologists gain insight and perspective on how the field has evolved, the factors that influenced its progress, and where it may be headed. Vaccine history teaches that advances in vaccines are closely tied to the development of new and improved technologies, themselves often derived from other, related fields. Vaccine science made little progress from Jenner’s time to the latter part of the 19th century. It was only after Koch had defined a laboratory framework within which to understand the etiologic role of specific microbial organisms in specific disease states that rapid progress ensued. Similarly, advances in developing vaccines against toxinbased infections awaited technological advances in the nascent fields of immunology and adjuvant chemistry. The development of vaccines for some of the most important viral disease scourges of childhood required first the discovery of viruses, in the last decade of the 19th century, followed by another half-century of incremental technical advances in tissue culture—derived from the fields of zoology, embryology, surgery, engineering, and pathology—before culminating in the ability to cultivate viruses in vitro. From there, the path to vaccines was a straight line. The study of the history of vaccines provides insights into how today’s vaccinologists might approach new and lingering problems in infectious diseases. By understanding how the field has evolved, innovative strategies—informed by novel technologies—can be pursued and applied towards the development of safe and effective vaccines against chronic infections, highly variable pathogens, or non-infectious diseases such as cancer. Like our predecessors, today’s vaccinologists must learn from the history of vaccine science, sampling liberally from applicable data. However, we must also stand ready to incorporate new concepts and new technologies—such as vaccinomics and systems biology—towards the discovery of new vaccines [17,20]. In order to fully realize the next “golden age” of vaccinology, we must not only embrace such new paradigms, but also continue to reflect on how we arrived here. Such reflections on the past are critical as we move from “vaccinology I” to “vaccinology II” in considering how vaccines are devised and deployed [21]. Knowledge of past approaches and solutions can inform new approaches, while at the same time causing us to leave currently cherished scientific notions. For example, much of early vaccinology was characterized by an “isolate-inactivateinject” paradigm. While considerable progress was made on this
level, it is a clearly insufficient approach to developing vaccines against hyper-variable viruses such as HIV, HCV, and others. Importantly, the history of the public’s use and acceptance of vaccines is another historical element critical to understanding today’s antivaccine movement [22] and the current attempts globally to protect the public health in terms of high levels of vaccine coverage and attempts to eliminate (measles) and eradicate (polio) current scourges. A very practical side to vaccine history has also become apparent. With the success of vaccines in controlling outbreaks of disease have come “success induced” and often unanticipated issues. The widespread use of vaccines against previously common childhood viral illnesses, such as measles and rubella, has prevented regular epidemics of disease such that parents and the public no longer appreciate the considerable morbidity and mortality caused by these diseases. This, in turn, leads to a laissez-faire attitude toward the importance and urgency in using these vaccines to ensure high coverage rates. For similar reasons, young physicians and nurses are no longer familiar with the clinical presentation of these diseases and are often unaware of their morbidity and mortality and the need for high vaccine coverage rates. While no one entity can solve these issues, we have devised a practical response. A new section, entitled “The History of Vaccinology,” will be a regular feature of our journal. This section has an appointed Associate Editor, Dr. Andrew Artenstein, who will craft, shepherd, and build this new and important section. In combination with another new section, “Visual Vaccinology,” we intend to include visuals (pictures, graphs, etc.) that will illustrate past and current vaccine development, the diseases themselves, and applications to current issues in vaccinology. We believe these new sections will provide important context as prelude to the future. We invite manuscripts, ideas, and your thoughts as we launch these exciting sections. Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose regarding the manuscript. References [1] Artenstein AW. Vaccinology in context: the historical burden of infectious diseases. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [2] Jenner E. An inquiry into the causes and effects of the variolae vaccine: a disease discovered in some of the western counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and known by the name cox pox. Birmingham, AL: Classics of Medicine Library; 1978. [3] Debre P. Louis Pasteur. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1994. [4] Opal SM. A brief history of microbiology and immunology. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [5] Norrby E. Yellow fever and Max Theiler: the only Nobel Prize a virus vaccine. J Exp Med 2007;204(November (12)): for 2779–84. [6] Goodpasture EW, Woodruff AM, Buddingh GJ. The cultivation of vaccine and other viruses in the chorioallantoic membrane of chick embryos. Science 1931;74(October (1919)):371–2. [7] Enders JF, Weller TH, Robbins FC. Cultivation of the lansing strain of poliomyelitis virus in cultures of various human embryonic tissues. Science 1949;109(January (2822)):85–7. [8] Poland GA, Oberg AL. Vaccinomics and bioinformatics: accelerants for the next golden age of vaccinology. Vaccine 2010;28(April (20)): 3509–10. [9] Heidelberger M, Avery OT. The soluble specific substance of pneumococcus. J Exp Med 1923;38(June (1)):73–9. [10] Artenstein AW, LaForce FM. Critical episodes in the understanding and control of epidemic meningococcal meningitis. Vaccine 2012;(April). [11] Finland M. Emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. N Engl J Med 1955;253(December (22)):969–79. [12] Artenstein AW. Polysaccharide vaccines. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009.
Editorial / Vaccine 30 (2012) 5299–5301 [13] Pizza M, Scarlato V, Masignani V, Giuliani MM, Arico B, Comanducci M, et al. Identification of vaccine candidates against serogroup B meningococcus by whole-genome sequencing. Science 2000;287(March (5459)):1816–20. [14] Gossger N, Snape MD, Yu LM, Finn A, Bona G, Esposito S, et al. Immunogenicity and tolerability of recombinant serogroup B meningococcal vaccine administered with or without routine infant vaccinations according to different immunization schedules: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2012;307(February (6)):573–82. [15] Haralambieva IH, Poland GA. Vaccinomics, predictive vaccinology and the future of vaccine development. Future Microbiol 2010;5(December):1757–60. [16] Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Kennedy RB, Haralambieva IH, Jacobson RM. Vaccinomics and a new paradigm for the development of preventive vaccines against viral infections. Omics 2011;15(9):625–36. [17] Poland GA, Kennedy RB, Ovsyannikova IG. Vaccinomics and personalized vaccinology: is science leading us toward a new path of directed vaccine development and discovery? PLoS Pathogens 2011;7(12.). [18] Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1996. [19] Blumberg BS. Hepatitis B. In: Artenstein AW, editor. Vaccines: a biography. New York: Springer; 2009. [20] Oberg AL, Kennedy RB, Li P, Ovsyannikova IG, Poland GA. Systems biology approaches to new vaccine development. Curr Opin Immunol 2011; (May). [21] Poland GA, Hollingsworth JR. From Science II to Vaccinology II: a new epistemology. Vaccine 2011;29(February (8)):1527–8. [22] Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med 2011;364(January (2)):97–9.
5301
Associate Editor Andrew W. Artenstein ∗ Department of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States Editor-in-Chief Gregory A. Poland Mayo Vaccine Research Group and Program in Translational Immunovirology and Biodefense, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Medicine, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, 111 Brewster St., Pawtucket, RI 02860, United States. Tel.: +1 401 729 3100; fax: +1 401 729 3282. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.W. Artenstein)
12 June 2012