Anti-IAV H1N1 Hemagglutinin Monoclonal antibody, Clone JIB-I2O2-QST

Following influenza A vaccination, certain individuals exhibit adverse reactions in the nervous system, which causes a problem with the safety of the influenza A vaccine. However, to the best of our knowledge, the underlying mechanism of this is unknown. The present study revealed that a monoclonal antibody (H1-84mAb) against the H1N1 influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) protein cross-reacted with an antigen from brain tissue. Total brain tissue protein was immunoprecipitated with this cross-reactive antibody, and mass spectrometry revealed that the bound antigens were heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP) A1 and hnRNPA2/B1. Subsequently, the two proteins were expressed in bacteria and it was demonstrated that H1-84mAb bound to hnRNPA1 and hnRNPA2/B1. These two proteins were expressed in three segments and the cross-reactivity of H1-84mAb with the glycine (Gly)-rich domains of hnRNPA1 (195aa-320aa) and hnRNPA2/B1 (202aa-349aa) was determined using ELISA blocking experiments. It was concluded that the Gly-rich domains of these two proteins are heterophilic antigens that cross-react with influenza virus HA. The association between the heterophilic antigen Gly-rich domains and the safety of influenza A vaccines remains to be investigated.

Background Mobility restrictions-trade and travel bans, border closures and, in extreme cases, area quarantines orcordons sanitaires-are among the most widely used measures to control infectious diseases. Restrictions of this kind were important in the response to epidemics of SARS (2003), H1N1 influenza (2009), Ebola (2014) and, currently in the containment of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, they do not always work as expected. Methods To determine when mobility restrictions reduce the size of an epidemic, we use a model of disease transmission within and between economically heterogeneous locally connected communities. One community comprises a low-risk, low-density population with access to effective medical resources. The other comprises a high-risk, high-density population without access to effective medical resources. Findings Unrestricted mobility between the two risk communities increases the number of secondary cases in the low-risk community but reduces the overall epidemic size. By contrast, the imposition of acordon sanitairearound the high-risk community reduces the number of secondary infections in the low-risk community but increases the overall epidemic size. Interpretation Mobility restrictions may not be an effective policy for controlling the spread of an infectious disease if it is assessed by the overall final epidemic size. Patterns of mobility established through the independent mobility and trade decisions of people in both communities may be sufficient to contain epidemics.