↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the adjuvanticity of two adjuvant formulations containing de-O-acylated lipooligosaccharide on Japanese encephalitis vaccine in mice

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Pharmacal Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the adjuvanticity of two adjuvant formulations containing de-O-acylated lipooligosaccharide on Japanese encephalitis vaccine in mice
Published in
Archives of Pharmacal Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12272-017-0985-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ara Ko, Seo Ri Wui, Ji In Ryu, Hien Thi Thu Do, Yeon Jeong Lee, Soo Jeong Lim, Inmoo Rhee, Dae Im Jung, Jin-ah Park, Jung-ah Choi, Man Ki Song, Na Gyong Lee

Abstract

Adjuvants are essential vaccine components used to enhance, accelerate, and/or prolong adaptive immunity against specific vaccine antigens. In this study, we compared the adjuvanticity of two adjuvant formulations containing de-O-acylated lipooligosaccharide (dLOS), a toll-like receptor 4 agonist, on the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine in mice. Mice were immunized once or twice at a two-week interval with inactivated JE vaccine in the absence or presence of adjuvant. We found that both the alum- and the liposome-based formulation induced significantly faster and higher serum IgG antibody responses as compared with the non-adjuvanted vaccine after either one or two immunizations. The antibody titers of the mouse immune sera correlated with 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) antibody titers. In addition, the dLOS/liposome formulation was more effective in inducing a Th1-type immune response than the dLOS/alum formulation, as suggested by a strong antigen-specific interferon (IFN)-γ response. Based on these results, we suggest that both alum- and liposome-based adjuvant formulations containing dLOS may be used for the development of JE vaccines with improved immunogenicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 43%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 2 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,452,930
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Pharmacal Research
#1,140
of 1,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#366,946
of 431,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Pharmacal Research
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,299 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.