| Title |
Co-administration of antigen with chemokine MCP-3 or MDC/CCL22 enhances DNA vaccine potency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Investigational New Drugs, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10637-015-0250-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xinmei Xie, Lin Wang, Wenliang Yang, Ruishuang Yu, Qingli Li, Xiaobin Pang |
| Abstract |
We evaluated the utility of chemokine MCP-3 and MDC/CCL22 as molecular adjuvants of DNA vaccines for botulinum neurotoxin serotype A (BoNT/A) in a Balb/c mouse model. Notably, the immunogenicity of the DNA vaccine against BoNT/A was not enhanced using a fusion of the AHc-C antigen with the MCP-3 or MDC/CCL22. Nevertheless, the potency of the DNA vaccine was significantly modulated and enhanced by co-administration of the AHc-C antigen with MCP-3 or MDC/CCL22. This strategy elicited high levels of humoral immune responses and protection against BoNT/A. The enhanced potency was further boosted by co-administration of the AHc-C antigen with both MCP-3 and MDC/CCL22 in Balb/c mice, but not by co-administration of AHc-C antigen with the MCP-3-MDC/CCL22 fusion. Co-immunization with both the MCP-3 and MDC/CCL22 constructs induced the highest levels of humoral immunity and protective potency against BoNT/A. Our results indicated that MCP-3 and MDC/CCL22 are effective molecular adjuvants of the immune responses induced by the AHc-C-expressing DNA vaccine when delivered by co-administration of the individual chemokines, but not when delivered in the form of a chemokine/antigen fusion. Thus, we describe an alternative strategy to the design and optimization of DNA vaccine constructs based on co-administration of the antigen with the chemokine rather than in the form of a chemokine/antigen fusion. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 29% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
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 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,273,512
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Investigational New Drugs
#975
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,989
of 263,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigational New Drugs
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 1,168 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 263,982 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 18 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.