Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Virology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Vaccines and Antiviral Agents

Recent Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: No Evidence of Immune Escape

Steven A. Rubin, Malen A. Link, Christian J. Sauder, Cheryl Zhang, Laurie Ngo, Bert K. Rima, W. Paul Duprex
Steven A. Rubin
aDivision of Viral Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malen A. Link
aDivision of Viral Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian J. Sauder
aDivision of Viral Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cheryl Zhang
aDivision of Viral Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurie Ngo
aDivision of Viral Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bert K. Rima
bSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Science, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Paul Duprex
cBoston University School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.06125-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Recently, numerous large-scale mumps outbreaks have occurred in vaccinated populations. Clinical isolates sequenced from these outbreaks have invariably been of genotypes distinct from those of vaccine viruses, raising concern that certain mumps virus strains may escape vaccine-induced immunity. To investigate this concern, sera obtained from children 6 weeks after receipt of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine were tested for the ability to neutralize a carefully selected group of genetically diverse mumps virus strains. Although the geometric mean neutralizing antibody titer of the sera was lower against some virus strains than others, all viruses were readily neutralized, arguing against immune escape.

TEXT

Mumps is an acute, systemic, communicable viral infection characterized by swelling of one or both parotid glands, often accompanied by more serious complications, such as meningitis, pancreatitis, or orchitis. Mumps virus (MuV), a nonsegmented negative-strand RNA virus in the family Paramyxoviridae, encodes nine proteins from seven transcription units. The gene order is 3′-N-V/P/I-M-F-SH-HN-L-5′, representing nucleo- (N), V/phospho-/I (V/P/I), matrix (M), fusion (F), small hydrophobic (SH), hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN), and large (L) protein genes, respectively (28, 29). The functions of the viral proteins have been well described in the literature (9, 37). Briefly, the N, P, and L proteins are located within the virion and are responsible for genome transcription and replication. The M protein, also located internally, is involved in virion assembly and budding and may also regulate genome transcription and replication. The F and HN glycoproteins, present on the outer surface of the viral envelope, are responsible for virus-to-cell attachment and virus-to-cell and cell-to-cell fusion. The SH and V proteins are nonstructural accessory proteins involved in evasion of the host antiviral response. The role of the I protein in the life cycle of the virus is not known.

Prior to implementation of mumps immunization programs, more than 90% of most populations had serologic evidence of exposure to MuV by 15 years of age (11, 44). Within a decade of the 1967 implementation of mumps vaccination in the United States, disease incidence declined from greater than 100 cases reported per 100,000 population to less than 10 cases per 100,000 (12). By 2001, the disease was nearly eliminated, with less than 0.1 case per 100,000 (43). Similar success in the control of mumps has been achieved in other countries (32, 50, 58); however, over the past 6 years, mumps has made a resurgence globally, including in the United States, which recently experienced its largest outbreak since 1987 (5, 7, 13, 14, 19, 42, 49, 52, 53, 62). Whereas mumps was historically a disease of childhood, these outbreaks predominantly involved young adults, nearly all of whom had a history of vaccination during childhood, most with the recommended two-dose schedule. While these data are suggestive of waning immunity, it has also been postulated that antigenic differences between the vaccine and outbreak strains may allow for vaccine escape (20, 45). Indeed, viruses isolated from recent outbreaks cluster into genotype groupings distinct from those of the vaccine strains used. With few exceptions, genotype G strains have been isolated from cases in the Western hemisphere (27), genotype J and F from the Asia-Pacific region (5, 16), and genotype H from the Middle East (3, 33), whereas the mumps vaccines used in these countries contain predominantly genotype A Jeryl Lynn (JL)-based vaccines and to a lesser extent the genotype B Urabe-AM9 vaccine and the yet to be assigned genotype Leningrad-Zagreb vaccine.

To comprehensively investigate the possibility that certain mumps virus strains may be insensitive to vaccine-induced antibody, we sought first to identify viral protein targets of neutralizing antibody and then to construct phylogenetic trees based on the amino acid sequences of these proteins. A representative virus member from each grouping would then be used in plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) assays with sera (kindly provided by Merck and Co.) obtained from 96 4- to 6-year-old children 6 weeks after receipt of a second dose of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine containing the JL mumps virus strain (51).

Although it is clear that the MuV HN protein is a target of neutralizing antibody (21, 35, 40, 48, 59), the virus-neutralizing capacity of antibodies directed against other MuV proteins has not been adequately investigated. Here, reverse genetics techniques were used to construct full-length cDNA plasmids encoding different combinations of viral N, V/P/I, L, F, and HN proteins derived from two genetically disparate MuV strains, the genotype A JL vaccine virus and the genotype H 88-1961 (here referred to as 88) wild-type virus (4). Antibodies directed against the nonessential SH protein have not been detected in human sera; thus, it is unlikely that such antibodies, if they exist, play an important role in antibody-mediated virus neutralization. The SH protein was therefore excluded from this analysis. The role of the M protein was not evaluated. The genetic makeup of the eight recombinant viruses used for the analysis is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1

Genome structure of recombinant viruses. Boxed elements shown in gray or black denote Jeryl Lynn (JL)- or 88-1961 (88)-derived sequences, respectively. Smaller boxes between open reading frames delineate untranslated regions. As per convention, the V/P/I gene is referred to here as the P gene. The construction of these viruses is described elsewhere (56).

A subset of the 96 serum specimens (n = 10, preselected for titer range) were tested for their relative neutralizing capacity against these eight recombinant viruses in PRN assays performed as described earlier (54). Results are shown in Fig. 2. All comparisons were performed using log-transformed data and the Student's t test (α = 0.05). As expected, replacement of the JL HN gene with that of 88 [rJL+88(HN)] or vice versa [r88+JL(HN)] yielded geometric mean titers (GMTs) that were significantly different than those of the parental viruses (all P values were <0.001), confirming the HN protein as a major target of neutralizing antibody. In contrast, replacement of the JL F gene with that of 88 [rJL+88(F)], or vice versa [r88+JL(F)] yielded GMTs not statistically different from those measured against the parental viruses (P value of 0.06 or 0.385, respectively), suggesting that the MuV F gene does not play a significant role in the neutralizing antibody response. This is consistent with findings by others who were unable to achieve virus neutralization with anti-MuV F protein antibodies (47, 60, 63), although one group reported that serum from hamsters infected with vaccinia virus expressing the MuV F protein was capable of virus neutralization in vitro (34). No effect on neutralization was seen with replacement of the N, V/P/I, and L genes [rJL+88(N/P/L) and r88+JL(N/P/L); P values of 0.556 and 0.663, respectively], a finding that was perhaps not surprising considering the likely inaccessibility of these internally expressed proteins to antibody. Nonetheless, neutralization by antibodies specific for internally expressed proteins has been reported for other viruses (22, 39, 41). Although Western blot analysis revealed differences in viral protein content between the different viruses, levels of protein expression did not correlate with susceptibility to neutralization (data not shown).

Fig 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2

Plaque reduction neutralizing antibody titer (GMT) calculated for 10 sera against eight different virus constructs. Bars indicate upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals. PRN titers are expressed as the reciprocal of the highest serum dilution factor required to neutralize at least 50% of the challenge virus PFU.

Based on the demonstration of the HN protein as the major player in virus susceptibility to antibody-mediated neutralization, all unique mumps virus strains for which the full-length HN amino acid sequence was available in the NCBI databases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) were used to construct a phylogenetic tree using the freeware program MEGA v3.1 (36) using the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic means (UPGMA) (26). The resulting tree showed seven distinct clusters, arbitrarily labeled as groups 1 to 7 (Fig. 3). Similar clustering of viruses was achieved when the analysis was repeated using the SH gene nucleotide sequence (data not shown). One virus was selected from each HN grouping, with the exception of group 1, for which two viruses were chosen to allow assaying of both the homologous vaccine strain (JL) and a different group 1 virus. No viruses representing group 3 were available. Thus, a total of seven MuVs were tested.

Fig 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3

Phylogenetic tree constructed using full-length HN amino acid sequences for 65 unique MuV strains obtained from NCBI Entrez databases. Virus strains selected for the study are indicated. These are vaccine strains Jeryl Lynn/USA63 (the major MuV component in M-M-R II [2]) and Urabe-AM9/JPN73 (64) and clinical isolates Enders/USA45 (30), Odate-1/JPN (55), Iowa-G/USA06 (54), Lo1/UK88 (1), and 88-1961/USA88 (4). The arbitrary group numbers are boxed.

The GMTs of the 96 serum samples tested against the 7 MuV strains are presented in Fig. 4. All sera neutralized all viruses. Not surprisingly, the highest titers were measured against JL (the immunizing agent). No statistically significant differences were seen between the anti-JL and anti-Enders/USA45 GMTs (233 versus 195, P = 0.166, Mann-Whitney rank sum test), consistent with the two viruses belonging to the same HN phylogenetic group. In contrast, the anti-JL titers were significantly different from those measured against the other five viruses (all had P values of <0.001, Mann-Whitney rank sum test). Thus, although we have found clear evidence of antigenic differences among mumps virus strains, the fact that all sera neutralized all viruses supports the notion that mumps virus is serologically monotypic and argues against the evolution of exotic strains capable of escaping JL vaccine-induced immunity. However, the sera tested here were obtained from individuals 6 weeks after vaccination, a time when titers are relatively high (8), whereas numerous studies have found levels of MuV-specific antibody to decline significantly with time postvaccination (24, 25, 38, 54). This has been associated with decreased vaccine effectiveness (17, 31, 57) and increased odds of contracting disease (10, 19, 61). Thus, it is possible that by the time of adolescence (when antibody levels have declined) such antigenic differences may be of significance.

Fig 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 4

GMTs of sera from MMR vaccines tested against seven different MuV strains. Bars indicate upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals.

Of note, T cell immunity was not assessed in this study; thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that certain MuV strains might be capable of escaping vaccine-induced T cell responses. Given our evidence of effective B cell immunity shortly after vaccination, the ability to escape vaccine-induced T cell responses might not be of significance in the short term but could dramatically compound the problems caused by waning B cell immunity as the interval between vaccination and subsequent exposure increases. Also, it must be acknowledged that measurements of virus-neutralizing antibody in vitro may not be fully predictive of immunological activity in vivo given that numerous processes that occur in the host are not reflected in the assays used to measure virus viability in vitro.

It is important to highlight the fact that the occurrence of outbreaks in vaccinated populations is not a problem unique to the JL vaccine strain, given that outbreaks have also occurred in populations with a history of vaccination with the Urabe AM9 and Leningrad-Zagreb strains (3, 15, 18, 33, 46). Thus, development of new mumps vaccine strains, as some have suggested, is not a likely solution to the problem. Rather, revaccination during adolescence to combat waning immunity might be the most effective measure, as suggested by the experience with military recruits who were spared involvement in the mumps resurgence in the United States in 2006 despite belonging to the same age group and residing in high-density close-contact environments, conditions not dissimilar to those of university campuses where the bulk of the outbreaks occurred in 2006. The likely reason for this is that in 1991, the military had begun routine administration of MMR vaccine to recruits without regard to prior vaccination status. This policy was modified in 1995 and then again in 2006, but the end effect was that a significant proportion of recruits likely received a dose of mumps-containing vaccine upon entrance into the military (6).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by a grant by the National Vaccine Program Office administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 August 2011.
    • Accepted 20 October 2011.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 9 November 2011.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Afzal MA,
    2. Buchanan J,
    3. Heath AB,
    4. Minor PD
    . 1997. Clustering of mumps virus isolates by SH gene sequence only partially reflects geographic origin. Arch. Virol. 142:227–238.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Afzal MA,
    2. Pickford AR,
    3. Forsey T,
    4. Heath AB,
    5. Minor PD
    . 1993. The Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain of mumps virus is a mixture of two distinct isolates. J. Gen. Virol. 74:917–920.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Akcali A,
    2. Yilmaz N,
    3. Uyar Y,
    4. Ertek M,
    5. Buzgan T
    . 2009. Genotyping of mumps virus circulating in Turkey in the 2006-2007 winter season. Arch. Virol. 154:1807–1812.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Amexis G,
    2. Rubin S,
    3. Chatterjee N,
    4. Carbone K,
    5. Chumakov K
    . 2003. Identification of a new genotype H wild-type mumps virus strain and its molecular relatedness to other virulent and attenuated strains. J. Med. Virol. 70:284–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bangor-Jones RD,
    2. et al
    . 2009. A prolonged mumps outbreak among highly vaccinated Aboriginal people in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Med. J. Aust. 191:398–401.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Barskey AE,
    2. Glasser JW,
    3. LeBaron CW
    . 2009. Mumps resurgences in the United States: a historical perspective on unexpected elements. Vaccine 27:6186–6195.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Boxall N,
    2. Kubinyiova M,
    3. Prikazsky V,
    4. Benes C,
    5. Castkova J
    . 2008. An increase in the number of mumps cases in the Czech Republic, 2005-2006. Euro Surveill. 13:pii:18842.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brunell PA,
    2. Brickman A,
    3. Steinberg S
    . 1969. Evaluation of a live attenuated mumps vaccine (Jeryl Lynn). With observations on the optimal time for testing serologic response. Am. J. Dis. Child. 118:435–440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Carbone KM,
    2. Rubin S
    . 2007. Mumps virus, p 1527–1542. In Knipe DM, et al. (ed), Fields virology, 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Castilla J,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn-containing vaccine in Spanish children. Vaccine 27:2089–2093.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1986. Mumps—United States, 1984-1985. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35:216–219.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. Summary of notifiable diseases, United States, 1993. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 42:i–xvii, 1-73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. Brief report: update: mumps activity—United States, January 1-October 7, 2006. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 55:1152–1153.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Update: mumps outbreak—New York and New Jersey, June 2009-January 2010. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 59:125–129.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chamot E,
    2. Toscani L,
    3. Egger P,
    4. Germann D,
    5. Bourquin C
    . 1998. Estimation of the efficacy of three strains of mumps vaccines during an epidemic of mumps in the Geneva canton (Switzerland). Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publique 46:100–107. (In French.)
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Chen M,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Comparison of genotype characteristics between the circulating mumps virus strain in Beijing area and the vaccine strain. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 30:1184–1188. (In Chinese.)
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Cohen C,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Vaccine effectiveness estimates, 2004-2005 mumps outbreak, England. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13:12–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Cooney MK,
    2. Fox JP,
    3. Hall CE
    . 1975. The Seattle Virus Watch. VI. Observations of infections with and illness due to parainfluenza, mumps and respiratory syncytial viruses and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Am. J. Epidemiol. 101:532–551.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Cortese MM,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Mumps vaccine performance among university students during a mumps outbreak. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46:1172–1180.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Crowley B,
    2. Afzal MA
    . 2002. Mumps virus reinfection—clinical findings and serological vagaries. Commun. Dis. Public Health 5:311–313.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Cusi MG,
    2. et al
    . 2001. Localization of a new neutralizing epitope on the mumps virus hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein. Virus Res. 74:133–137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Cusi MG,
    2. Valensin PE,
    3. Donati M,
    4. Valassina M
    . 2001. Neutralization of Toscana virus is partially mediated by antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein. J. Med. Virol. 63:72–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Reference deleted.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Davidkin I,
    2. Jokinen S,
    3. Broman M,
    4. Leinikki P,
    5. Peltola H
    . 2008. Persistence of measles, mumps, and rubella antibodies in an MMR-vaccinated cohort: a 20-year follow-up. J. Infect. Dis. 197:950–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Davidkin I,
    2. Valle M,
    3. Julkunen I
    . 1995. Persistence of anti-mumps virus antibodies after a two-dose MMR vaccination: a nine-year follow-up. Vaccine 13:1617–1622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Davis JP,
    2. Akella S,
    3. Waddell PH
    . 2004. Accelerating phylogenetics computing on the desktop: experiments with executing UPGMA in programmable logic. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 4:2864–2868.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Dayan GH,
    2. Rubin S
    . 2008. Mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations: are available mumps vaccines effective enough to prevent outbreaks? Clin. Infect. Dis. 47:1458–1467.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Elango N,
    2. Varsanyi TM,
    3. Kovamees J,
    4. Norrby E
    . 1988. Molecular cloning and characterization of six genes, determination of gene order and intergenic sequences and leader sequence of mumps virus. J. Gen. Virol. 69:2893–2900.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Elliott GD,
    2. et al
    . 1990. Strain-variable editing during transcription of the P gene of mumps virus may lead to the generation of non-structural proteins NS1 (V) and NS2. J. Gen. Virol. 71:1555–1560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Enders JF,
    2. Levens JH
    . 1946. Attenuation of virulence with retention of antigenicity of mumps virus after passage in the embryonated egg. J. Immunol. 54:283–291.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Fu C,
    2. Liang J,
    3. Wang M
    . 2008. Matched case-control study of effectiveness of live, attenuated S79 mumps virus vaccine against clinical mumps. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 15:1425–1428.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Galazka AM,
    2. Robertson SE,
    3. Kraigher A
    . 1999. Mumps and mumps vaccine: a global review. Bull. World Health Organ. 77:3–14.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hindiyeh MY,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Characterization of large mumps outbreak among vaccinated Palestinian refugees. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:560–565.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Houard S,
    2. Varsanyi TM,
    3. Milican F,
    4. Norrby E,
    5. Bollen A
    . 1995. Protection of hamsters against experimental mumps virus (MuV) infection by antibodies raised against the MuV surface glycoproteins expressed from recombinant vaccinia virus vectors. J. Gen. Virol. 76:421–423.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kovamees J,
    2. Rydbeck R,
    3. Orvell C,
    4. Norrby E
    . 1990. Hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) amino acid alterations in neutralization escape mutants of Kilham mumps virus. Virus Res. 17:119–129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Kumar S,
    2. Tamura K,
    3. Nei M
    . 2004. MEGA3: integrated software for molecular evolutionary genetics analysis and sequence alignment. Brief. Bioinform. 5:150–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Lamb RA,
    2. Parks GD
    . 2007. Paramyxoviridae: the viruses and their replication, p 1449–1496. In Knipe DM, et al. (ed), Fields virology, 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
  38. 38.↵
    1. LeBaron CW,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Persistence of mumps antibodies after 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. J. Infect. Dis. 199:552–560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    1. Lecomte J,
    2. et al
    . 1987. Protection from mouse hepatitis virus type 3-induced acute disease by an anti-nucleoprotein monoclonal antibody. Arch. Virol. 97:123–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Liang Y,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Immunogenicity and safety of a novel formalin-inactivated and alum-adjuvanted candidate subunit vaccine for mumps. Vaccine 26:4276–4283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Lodmell DL,
    2. Esposito JJ,
    3. Ewalt LC
    . 1993. Rabies virus antinucleoprotein antibody protects against rabies virus challenge in vivo and inhibits rabies virus replication in vitro. J. Virol. 67:6080–6086.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Marin M,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Mumps vaccination coverage and vaccine effectiveness in a large outbreak among college students—Iowa, 2006. Vaccine 26:3601–3607.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    1. McNabb SJ,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Summary of notifiable diseases—United States, 2005. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 54:1–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Mortimer PP
    . 1978. Mumps prophylaxis in the light of a new test for antibody. Br. Med. J. 2:1523–1524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Nojd J,
    2. Tecle T,
    3. Samuelsson A,
    4. Orvell C
    . 2001. Mumps virus neutralizing antibodies do not protect against reinfection with a heterologous mumps virus genotype. Vaccine 19:1727–1731.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Ong G,
    2. Goh KT,
    3. Ma S,
    4. Chew SK
    . 2005. Comparative efficacy of Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe mumps vaccine in an Asian population. J. Infect. 51:294–298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Orvell C
    . 1984. The reactions of monoclonal antibodies with structural proteins of mumps virus. J. Immunol. 132:2622–2629.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Orvell C,
    2. Alsheikhly AR,
    3. Kalantari M,
    4. Johansson B
    . 1997. Characterization of genotype-specific epitopes of the HN protein of mumps virus. J. Gen.Virol. 78:3187–3193.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.↵
    1. Park DW,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population: assessment of secondary vaccine failure using IgG avidity measurements. Vaccine 25:4665–4670.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    1. Peltola H,
    2. et al
    . 2000. Mumps and rubella eliminated from Finland. JAMA 284:2643–2647.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    1. Plotkin SA,
    2. Rubin SA
    . 2008. Mumps vaccine, p 435–465. InPlotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA (ed), Vaccines, 5th ed. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA.
  52. 52.↵
    1. Roberts C,
    2. Porter-Jones G,
    3. Crocker J,
    4. Hart J
    . 2009. Mumps outbreak on the island of Anglesey, North Wales, December 2008-January 2009. Euro Surveill. 14:pii:19109.
  53. 53.↵
    1. Rota JS,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Investigation of a mumps outbreak among university students with two measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations, Virginia, September-December 2006. J. Med. Virol. 81:1819–1825.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Rubin SA,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Antibody induced by immunization with the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine strain effectively neutralizes a heterologous wild-type mumps virus associated with a large outbreak. J. Infect. Dis. 198:508–515.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.↵
    1. Saito H,
    2. et al
    . 1998. Cloning and characterization of the genomic RNA sequence of the mumps virus strain assoicated with a high incidence of aseptic meningitis. Microbiol. Immunol. 42:133–137.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Sauder CJ,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Gene-specific contributions to mumps virus neurovirulence and neuroattenuation. J. Virol. 85:7059–7069.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Schwarz NG,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Mumps outbreak in the Republic of Moldova, 2007-2008. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 29:703–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Slater PE,
    2. Anis E,
    3. Leventhal A
    . 1999. The control of mumps in Israel. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 15:765–767.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Somboonthum P,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Generation of a recombinant Oka varicella vaccine expressing mumps virus hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein as a polyvalent live vaccine. Vaccine 25:8741–8755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Tecle T,
    2. Johansson B,
    3. Yun Z,
    4. Orvell C
    . 2000. Antigenic and genetic characterization of the fusion (F) protein of mumps virus strains. Arch. Virol. 145:1199–1210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    1. Vandermeulen C,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Outbreak of mumps in a vaccinated child population: a question of vaccine failure? Vaccine 22:2713–2716.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    1. Watson-Creed G,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Two successive outbreaks of mumps in Nova Scotia among vaccinated adolescents and young adults. CMAJ. 175:483–488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Wolinsky JS,
    2. Waxham MN,
    3. Server AC
    . 1985. Protective effects of glycoprotein-specific monoclonal antibodies on the course of experimental mumps virus meningoencephalitis. J. Virol. 53:727–734.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Yamanishi K,
    2. Takahashi M,
    3. Ueda S,
    4. Minekawa Y,
    5. Ogino T
    . 1973. Studies on live mumps virus vaccine. V. Development of a new mumps vaccine “AM 9” by plaque cloning. Biken J. 16:161–166.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Recent Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: No Evidence of Immune Escape
Steven A. Rubin, Malen A. Link, Christian J. Sauder, Cheryl Zhang, Laurie Ngo, Bert K. Rima, W. Paul Duprex
Journal of Virology Dec 2011, 86 (1) 615-620; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.06125-11

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Virology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Recent Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: No Evidence of Immune Escape
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Virology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Virology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Recent Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: No Evidence of Immune Escape
Steven A. Rubin, Malen A. Link, Christian J. Sauder, Cheryl Zhang, Laurie Ngo, Bert K. Rima, W. Paul Duprex
Journal of Virology Dec 2011, 86 (1) 615-620; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.06125-11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JVI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jvirology

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

JVI in collaboration with

American Society for Virology

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0022-538X; Online ISSN: 1098-5514