Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25746201›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2015

Vector optimization and needle-free intradermal application of a broadly protective polyvalent influenza A DNA vaccine for pigs and humans.

Marie Borggren, Jens Nielsen, Karoline Bragstad, Ingrid Karlsson, Jesper S Krog, James A Williams, Anders Fomsgaard

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A comprehensive comparison of DNA and RNA vaccines.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Protective effect of a polyvalent influenza DNA vaccine in pigs.Veterinary immunology and immunopathology · 2018
    Article
  13. A Review of DNA Vaccines Against Influenza.Frontiers in immunology · 2018
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. DNA vaccines 2014 meeting: Highlights and overview.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015
    Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Marie Borggrena Virus Research and Development Laboratory ; Department of Microbiological Diagnostic and Virology; Statens Serum Institut ; Copenhagen , Denmark.
Jens Nielsen
Karoline Bragstad
Ingrid Karlsson
Jesper S Krog
James A Williams
Anders Fomsgaard
Statens Serum Institut · DKNature Technology Corporation (United States) · USTechnical University of Denmark · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

MiniPlasmid vector platform for non-viral gene therapyR43GM102972 · NIGMS · NATURE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION · PI WILLIAMS, JAMES · 2013 to 2013
$248k
NIGMS NIH HHS R43 GM102972-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threat posed by the 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus emphasized the need for new influenza A virus vaccines inducing a broad cross-protective immune response for use in both humans and pigs. An effective and broad influenza vaccine for pigs would greatly benefit the pork industry and contribute to public health by diminishing the risk of emerging highly pathogenic reassortants. Current inactivated protein vaccines against swine influenza produce only short-lived immunity and have no efficacy against heterologous strains. DNA vaccines are a potential alternative with advantages such as the induction of cellular and humoral immunity, inherent safety and rapid production time. We have previously developed a DNA vaccine encoding selected influenza proteins of pandemic origin and demonstrated broad protective immune responses in ferrets and pigs. In this study, we evaluated our DNA vaccine expressed by next-generation vectors. These new vectors can improve gene expression, but they are also efficiently produced on large scales and comply with regulatory guidelines by avoiding antibiotic resistance genes. In addition, a new needle-free delivery of the vaccine, convenient for mass vaccinations, was compared with intradermal needle injection followed by electroporation. We report that when our DNA vaccine is expressed by the new vectors and delivered to the skin with the needle-free device in the rabbit model, it can elicit an antibody response with the same titers as a conventional vector with intradermal electroporation. The needle-free delivery is already in use for traditional protein vaccines in pigs but should be considered as a practical alternative for the mass administration of broadly protective influenza DNA vaccines.

Indexed as

Administration, CutaneousAnimalsAntibodies, ViralHumansInfluenza A virusInfluenza, HumanOrthomyxoviridae InfectionsRabbitsSwineSwine DiseasesVaccines, DNAAntibodies, ViralVaccines, DNAbp, base pairBSA, bovine serum albuminDK, DenmarkDNA, DeoxyriboNucleic AcidDNA vaccineELISA, Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent AssayEP, electroporationFCS, fetal calf serumHA, hemagglutininHAI, hemagglutination inhibition assayHAU, hemagglutination unitsHI, hemagglutination inhibitionIDAL®, IntraDermal Application of Liquids®i.d., intra-dermalIgG, immunoglobulin GinfluenzaMDCK cells, Madin-Darby Canine Kidney epithelial cellsM, matrix proteinNA, neuraminidaseneedle-freeNP, nucleoproteinNTC8385-VA1NTC9385RNZW, New Zealand WhitePBS, phosphate buffered salinepolyvalentRDE, receptor destroying enzymeSEM, standard error meanTMB, tetramethylbenzidinetPA, tissue plasminogen activatorUS, the United StatesWHO, world health organization

Identifiers

PMID25746201
PMCPMC4635702
OpenAlexW1902634866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.