SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Poliovirus”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Performance comparison of rapid and native barcoding methods for Oxford Nanopore sequencing of Poliovirus Viral Protein 1 (VP1) amplicons.

Accurate and timely sequencing of poliovirus is critical for global eradication efforts, particularly for molecular epidemiology based on the typing region of the genome, viral protein 1 (VP1). While Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing has expanded capabilities for poliovirus surveillance, the relative performance of different ONT library preparation methods, including ligation-based (Native Barcoding) and transposase-based (Rapid Barcoding) approaches, has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we compared rapid barcoding and native barcoding workflows for sequencing VP1 amplicons from 17 type 2 poliovirus-positive samples, each processed in triplicate. Native barcoding generated significantly more sequencing output, producing approximately 2.3-fold greater total read yield than rapid barcoding, and demonstrated higher run-to-run reproducibility (R2 = 0.979-0.998 vs. 0.847-0.929, respectively; p < 0.001). In addition, native barcoding generated 80% of the total yield achieved by rapid barcoding within approximately 7 h, whereas rapid barcoding required approximately 40 h to reach the same output. Despite these differences, both methods produced identical VP1 consensus sequences across all samples, with comparable read quality (median per-base Q-scores of approximately Q17-Q18). Rapid barcoding provided substantial practical advantages, reducing hands-on library preparation time (55 vs. 200 min) and per-sample cost ($12.82 vs. $16.54), while simplifying workflow and reducing technical complexity. These findings indicate that sequencing yield may not be a determinant of downstream analytical outcomes for poliovirus VP1 ONT sequencing. Rapid barcoding therefore represents a cost-effective and efficient approach for routine poliovirus surveillance, whereas native barcoding remains advantageous in applications requiring rapid data generation or maximal sequencing depth.

Poliovirus↗

PubMed2026

A multi-center, open-labelled, randomized controlled extended phase III non-inferiority clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and tolerability of poliomyelitis vaccine (Vero cells), inactivated, Sabin strains administered with or without routine infant vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has been reported to cause vaccine-derived poliovirus and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, and the limited global supply of conventional IPV has led many countries to rely on fractional-dose IPV regimens alongside OPV. The current study aims to assess the sIPV safety and immunogenicity when given concurrently with or in a staggered manner with routine immunization. METHODS: A multi-country, multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled, extended phase III non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted with 1442 healthy infants aged 6-8 weeks from Bangladesh and Pakistan enrolled and randomized into four groups, i.e., co-administration group 1 (group C1), co-administration group 2 (group C2), staggered administration group 1 (group S1) and staggered administration group 2 (group S2). Antibody levels were determined using the collected sera for immunogenicity evaluation. The difference in seroconversion rates between the coadministration group and the staggered administration group is compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 (CMH-χ2) test, stratified by study site. Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the rate difference (coadministration group minus staggered administration group) is greater than -10%. The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05850364), and the protocol and statistical analysis plan are available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05850364. The trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: The post-vaccination seroconversion rates for PV I were 90.3% (306/339) in group C1 and 87.0% (261/300) in group S1, for PV II, 91.7% (311/339) in group C1 and 91.3% (274/300) in group S1 and for PV III, 86.4% (293/339) in group C1 and 92.3% (277/300) in group S1. Among adverse reactions (ARs) reported within 7 days of vaccination, the incidence was similarly high in both the co-administration and staggered vaccination groups (92.8% vs. 95.5%). INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrated favorable safety and immunogenicity of co-administration of sIPV with other routine infant vaccines according to a 3-dose primary immunization schedule.

Humans↗