TABLE 3.
Comparison of niBAP subpopulations with infectious particles (PFPs) and total physical particles (HAPs)
| rgTK/OR/71 designationa | No. of aa residues of NS1 protein (1-X. . .Y)b | Ratio of niBAPs/PFPs |
Estimated ratiod |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFPs/PFPsc | DIPs/PFPsc | niCKPs/PFPsc | HAPs/PFPs | HAPs/IFPs | HAPs/DIPs | HAPs/niCKPs | HAPs/BAPs | ||
| Wild type | 1-230 | 5 | 14 | 4 | 1,230 | 240 | 85 | 330 | 51 |
| D-del pc2 (vac−)e | 1-115. . .125 | 330 | 4,040 | 40 | 3,200 | 10 | 0.8 | 80 | 0.7 |
| D-del pc1 (vac−)e | 1-80. . .90 | 2,370 | 15,080 | 193 | 65,100 | 27 | 4.3 | 340 | 3.7 |
| D-del pc4 (vac+)e | 1-91. . .93 | 4 | 240 | 3 | 1,140 | 310 | 4.6 | 440 | 4.5 |
| D-del pc3 (vac+)e | 1-69. . .86 | 4 | 470 | 5 | 1,240 | 340 | 2.6 | 230 | 2.6 |
a
See footnote a in Table 1.
b
See footnote b in Table 1.
c
Based on the titers in Table 1. The ratios are rounded to the nearest whole number.
d
Estimated on the basis of the average number of physical particles in 1 hemagglutinating unit, i.e., 5 × 106 (8, 20): niBAPs ≈ sum of IFPs, DIPs, and niCKPs. Total BAPs ≈ niBAPs plus PFPs.
e
Arranged in the order of effectiveness as LAIV on the basis of the titer of antibodies they induced against a heterologous virus (44).