Usage Information
Abstract
Ebola virus disease is a severe viral hemorrhagic illness with high maternal and perinatal mortality. Although the replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus–based Ebola vaccine (VSV-EBOV) has been deployed successfully in outbreak settings, pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials, leaving critical safety gaps. To address this, we developed a murine model to assess pregnancy outcomes following VSV-EBOV exposure at different gestational stages. Pregnant C57BL/6 mice vaccinated at embryonic day 7 (E7), E10, or E15 mounted robust anti–Ebola virus (anti-EBOV) antibody responses comparable to those of non-pregnant controls and efficiently cleared the vaccine virus without evidence of vertical transmission. However, peri-implantation vaccination modestly increased fetal resorption and early postnatal mortality, accompanied by placental pathology characterized by vascular remodeling defects and inflammation. Later gestational vaccination had minimal impact on survival or offspring development. Mechanistic studies revealed that these adverse effects were mediated by type I interferon signaling rather than direct viral infection, as IFN-β–deficient mice exhibited normal pregnancy outcomes and blocking interferon receptor activity ameliorated placental pathology despite higher viral loads. To our knowledge, these findings represent the first comprehensive preclinical safety evaluation of VSV-EBOV vaccination during pregnancy and identify a critical window of vulnerability early in gestation. More broadly, this work underscores the central role of interferons in shaping placental immune responses and provides an experimental framework to guide evaluation of live-virus vaccines in pregnancy.
Authors
Aaron P. Lewkowicz, Yiru Wang, Mirian I. Mendoza, Kaliroi Engel, Logan Kelley-Baker, Iara Rattner, Amber Lopez, Ian L. McWilliams, Derek D.C. Ireland, Mohanraj Manangeeswaran, Ha-Na Lee, Daniela Verthelyi, Sandra M. Blois
Usage data is cumulative from October 2026 through October 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 87 | 0 |
| 46 | 0 | |
| Figure | 70 | 0 |
| Table | 9 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 24 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 28 | 0 |
| Totals | 264 | 0 |
| Total Views | 264 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
