Safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in rhesus macaques of a novel recombinant hemagglutinin protein measles virus vaccine

Jessica H Rubens; Jacqueline K Brockhurst; Shristi Ghimire; Jinjin Wu; Liting Liu; Jason S Villano; Rebecca J Loomis; Alexandrine Derrien-Colemyn; Tracy J Ruckwardt; Barney S Graham; Michael W Watson; Guillaume B E Stewart-Jones; Diane E Griffin

doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaf244

Safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy in rhesus macaques of a novel recombinant hemagglutinin protein measles virus vaccine

J Infect Dis. 2025 May 13:jiaf244. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaf244. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
² W. Harry Feinstone Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
³ Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
⁴ Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
⁵ Mevox Ltd, Victory House Vision Park, Chivers Way, Histon, Cambridge, CB24 9ZR, United Kingdom.

PMID: 40358686
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaf244

Abstract

Background: Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) is an effective live-virus vaccine against measles but is poorly immunogenic in infants and contraindicated for pregnant and immunocompromised persons.

Methods: We evaluated immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a novel recombinant dimeric MeV hemagglutinin protein vaccine (rMeV) in rhesus macaques. Macaques (n=4) in four experimental groups were injected at days 0 and 42 with: 1) MMR/MMR; 2) rMeV/rMeV; 3) MMR/rMeV; 4) PBS/PBS and challenged intratracheally with wild type MeV 8-9 months later. Blood, nasopharyngeal (NP), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), bone marrow (BM), and lymph nodes (LN) were sampled.

Results: All macaques that received a MeV-containing vaccine developed MeV-specific binding and neutralizing antibody titers that were similar at 169 days post-vaccination, regardless of experimental group. After challenge, all unvaccinated macaques had MeV detected in samples of blood, NP, BAL, BM and LN, and one developed a rash. No vaccinated macaque developed a rash or had detectable MeV in PBMC, BM, or NP cells. However, MeV and MeV RNA were detected in BAL samples in all experimental groups with the most virus and longest detection in rMeV-vaccinated animals.

Conclusions: Immunization with rMeV protected macaques from rash, viremia and systemic virus spread. Therefore, rMeV is protective against MeV disease and a promising option for patients unable to receive or respond to MMR.

Keywords: Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine; antiviral antibody; measles vaccine; measles virus; nonhuman primate research; novel vaccine; protective immunity.

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.