Diagnostic Pathology: Open Access
Open Access

Developing vaccine-mediated protection is a difficult task. Currently current vaccinations were mostly produced on the basis of trial and error, with little or no knowledge of how they activate the immune system. Vaccination has had the most impact on human health of any medical intervention practise in the past. Immunization is the sole low-cost option for preventing and even eradicating infectious illnesses [1,2].

The science of vaccinology can be traced back to the ancient Chinese, who used the process of variation to defend against smallpox by intranasally inoculating small amounts of scabs from an infected person's lesion. Edward Jenner's discovery that cowpox putsules may prevent smallpox infection launched modern vaccinology as a legitimate scientific study. His work was the first to be scientifically evaluated, and it established the scientific basis for utilising a similar but less hazardous virus to elicit cross-protective immune responses against the more virulent infection. Sheep could also be protected from anthrax in similar experiments. Immunity evoked by the BCG tuberculosis vaccine, first administered in 1921 and still widely used today, is based on this notion of weakening a pathogen to call the immune system to produce a response [3-6].

Last, the rapid discovery of new vaccinations raises plenty of issues that are beyond the targeted diseases and the potential consequences of their prevention to include the particular and non-specific effects of such vaccines on the immune system, and hence on overall health. This is easily done through immunisation programmes that can provide long-term protection, which is a feature of adaptive immunity as opposed to innate immunity's quick but short-lived responses. Vaccines are pathogen immunogenic formulations that elicit an immune response but do not cause disease [7-9].

The mutants can survive harsh environmental factors as the mutation was caused under extreme pressure by physiological defense of the host organisms for these viruses. Increased mutation rates support the population of RNA virus as they are considered to be harmful to host cells leading to the progeny of lethal and resistant virus without the interference from immune cells of organisms [10]

Since the pre-genomic era's empirical methodologies, the reach of present and future vaccinations has extended significantly. Vaccines may now be designed logically, even personalised to individual needs. Adjuvants, proteomics, expression library vaccinations, and sub-unit vaccines, as well as innovative funding and philanthropy, are all making progress in the field of vaccination. There are some obstacles because the vaccinations that haven't been developed yet have either reached the limitations of present technology or aren't being developed due to a lack of motivation. The future study and identification of technologies that may have helped the field of vaccinology improve will be done by detailing the few limitations of present vaccination technologies.

1. Pierry D, Weiss G, Lack B, Chen V, Fusco J (2012) Intracellular human papillomavirus E6, E7 mRNA quantification predicts CIN 2+ in cervical biopsies better than Papanicolaou screening for women regardless of age. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 136:956-960.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

2. Dabeski D, Duvlis S, Basheska N, Antovska V, Stojovski M, et al. (2019) Comparison Between HPV DNA Testing and HPV E6/E7 MRNA Testing in Women with Squamous Cell Abnormalities of the Uterine Cervix. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki) 40:51-58.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

3. Ho CM, Pan KY, Chen YY, Huang CY, Chen YL, et al. (2015) Clinical performance of multiplex high-risk e6 mrna expression in comparison with hpv dna subtypes for the identification of women at risk of cervical cancer. J Med Virol 87:1404-1412.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

4. Duvlis S, Popovska-Jankovic K, Arsova ZS, Memeti S, Popeska Z, et al. (2015)  HPV E6/E7 mRNA versus HPV DNA biomarker in cervical cancer screening of a group of Macedonian women. J Med Virol. 87:1578-1586.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

5. Carter JR, Ding Z, Rose BR (2011) HPV infection and cervical disease: a review. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 512:103-108.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

6. Dockter J, Schroder A, Hill C, Guzenski L, Monsonego J, et al. (2009) Clinical performance of the APTIMA HPV Assay for the detection of high-risk HPV and high-grade cervical lesions. J Clin Virol. 45:S55-S61.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

7. Cuschieri K, Wentzensen N (2008) Human papillomavirus mRNA and p16 detection as biomarkers for the improved diagnosis of cervical neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.17:2536-2545.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

8. Granados R, Tellez-Safina H, Solis I, Mateos F, Rodriguez-Barbero JM, et al. (2017) Cervical cancer screening cotesting with cytology and MRNA HPV E6/E7 yields high rates of CIN2+ lesions in young women. Diagn Cytopathol 45:1065-1072.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

9. Pan D, Zhang CQ, Liang QL, Hong XC (2019) An efficient method that combines the ThinPrep cytologic test with E6/E7 mRNA testing for cervical cancer screening. Cancer Manag Res 11:4773-4780.

   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

10. Wang HY, Lee D, Park S, Kim G, Kim S, et al. (2015) Diagnostic Performance of HPV E6/E7 mRNA and HPV DNA Assays for the Detection and Screening of Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus Infection among Woman with Cervical Lesions in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 16:7633-7640.

    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]