Vaccination: Partial cell lysate vs. specific proteins

[Elite Engineer]

Vaccinations can be as low as 40% effectiveness and as high as 95%. 

In thinking of ways to raise the efficiency of vaccines with < 50% prevention, wouldn't it be more advantageous to use part of a whole cell lysate (taking out the bad stuff)

than using a handful of proteins that produce immunogenicity? At least this way, you're catching all the small interactions with cell components/ proteins that you would miss with just using a

surface protein or flagellin. Sure, you may raise the immune reaction a bit, and produce an elevated fever, but this would be common place in time. If you get a colonoscopy (very short procedure)

you're out of commission for the whole day. 

 

your thoughts?

 

~EE 

[CharonY]

What is the difference to what you propose to live or inactivated vaccines.?

[Elite Engineer]

well I'm sure the live or partially dead vaccines are efficient. It's just the vaccines that use a few proteins from the bacteria, like the vaccine for Lyme disease that used DbpA and OspC.

[CharonY]

Not sure what you are asking. Why in some cases specific antigens are used and in others live/dead vaccines?

Edited August 10, 2017 by CharonY

[koti]

Moved my post to another thread.

Edited August 10, 2017 by koti

[Asthfx]

From what I know it's not always possible making an attenuated or inactive version for a vaccine especially for bacteria that has a more complex structure. The chances for side reactions on a subunit vaccine are also lower. When using a subunit vaccine they also use inmunostimulatory agents for a proper inmunogenic reaction.

There's an interesting article I found. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883798/