Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25648133›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental vaccine research2015

Improvement of DNA vaccination by adjuvants and sophisticated delivery devices: vaccine-platforms for the battle against infectious diseases.

Thomas Grunwald, Sebastian Ulbert

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Dengue Vaccines.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Preclinical study of a DNA vaccine targeting SARS-CoV-2.Current research in translational medicine · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas GrunwaldDepartment of Immunology, Fraunhofer-Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7593-4914
Sebastian UlbertDepartment of Immunology, Fraunhofer-Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-3643
Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advantages of DNA vaccination against infectious diseases over more classical immunization methods include the possibilities for rapid manufacture, fast adaptation to newly emerging pathogens and high stability at ambient temperatures. In addition, upon DNA immunization the antigen is produced by the cells of the vaccinated individual, which leads to activation of both cellular and humoral immune responses due to antigen presentation via MHC I and MHC II molecules. However, so far DNA vaccines have shown most efficient immunogenicity mainly in small rodent models, whereas in larger animals including humans there is still the need to improve effectiveness. This is mostly due to inefficient delivery of the DNA plasmid into cells and nuclei. Here, we discuss technologies used to overcome this problem, including physical means such as in vivo electroporation and co-administration of adjuvants. Several of these methods have already entered clinical testing in humans.

Indexed as

DNA vaccinesGene transfer techniquesImmunologic adjuvantsInfection

Identifiers

PMID25648133
PMCPMC4313101
OpenAlexW2053720000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.