ArticleScientific reports2025
Intranasal booster induces durable mucosal immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in mice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- On or within: spatial determinants of antigen handling in the nasal turbinates.Current opinion in immunology · 2026Review
- Review
- Combating respiratory diseases with mucosal vaccines.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- Heterologous mucosal vaccine boosting enhances mucosal and systemic immunity by distinct mechanisms.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Lipid nanoparticle-based mRNA platforms for mucosal HIV vaccines: formulation advances, immune mechanisms, and translational pathways.Archives of microbiology · 2025Review
- Preventive Immunology for Livestock and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in the One Health Era: From Mechanistic Insights to Innovative Interventions.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are highly effective in preventing severe disease but are less consistent in protecting against infection and transmission. Developing vaccines with enhanced immunogenicity that can provide protection in both the upper and lower respiratory tract (URT and LRT) is crucial. Mucosal immunization induces immunity at the site of initial infection, the respiratory tract, thereby preventing or mitigating infection. Here, we compared immune responses elicited by intramuscular mRNA vaccination alone with those elicited by intramuscular mRNA vaccination followed by intranasal administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in mice. Although both vaccination strategies induced strong systemic immunity, robust humoral and cellular mucosal immune responses, including spike-specific IgA and tissue-resident T cells, were only detected upon mucosal vaccination. Compared to unvaccinated animals, mucosal vaccination resulted in migration of T cells and macrophages into the nasal turbinates, as well as migration and proliferation of B and T cells in the nasal-associated lymphoid tissue. While both vaccination regimens provided protection across the entire respiratory tract at 2 weeks post-vaccination, at 12 weeks post-vaccination, only the mice that received a mucosal vaccination remained protected in the URT. Gene-expression profiling of the respiratory tract at 2 days post-infection revealed distinct clustering between groups. Enrichment of immune signaling pathways, including B and T cells receptor pathways, was significantly higher in intranasally vaccinated animals. Together, our study demonstrates that mucosal vaccination provides durable protection against SARS-CoV-2 than intramuscular vaccination alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.