Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26344468›Full record

ReviewVaccines2014

Recent Developments in Preclinical DNA Vaccination.

Kenji Okuda, Yoshiyuki Wada, Masaru Shimada

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Evaluation of Triple Fragment Vaccine HSPX (Iranian journal of pathology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates in rapid development.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Recent trends and advances in microbe-based drug delivery systems.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Current trends in targeted therapy for drug-resistant infections.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Mesenteric CD103Frontiers in immunology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Kenji OkudaDepartment of Molecular Biodefense Research, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture 236-0004, Japan. kokuda@chojuken.net.
Yoshiyuki WadaVaccine Institute, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture 2235-0045, Japan. yoshiyukiw@hotomail.com.
Masaru ShimadaDepartment of Molecular Biodefense Research, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture 236-0004, Japan. kqxin@yahoo.co.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advantages of genetic immunization of the new vaccine using plasmid DNAs are multifold. For example, it is easy to generate plasmid DNAs, increase their dose during the manufacturing process, and sterilize them. Furthermore, they can be stored for a long period of time upon stabilization, and their protein encoding sequences can be easily modified by employing various DNA-manipulation techniques. Although DNA vaccinations strongly increase Th1-mediated immune responses in animals, several problems persist. One is about their weak immunogenicity in humans. To overcome this problem, various genetic adjuvants, electroporation, and prime-boost methods have been developed preclinically, which are reviewed here.

Indexed as

DNA vaccineelectroporationgenetic adjuvants

Identifiers

PMID26344468
PMCPMC4494203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.