In this study, we investigated the potential of intradermal delivery of nanoparticulate vaccines to modulate the immune response of protein antigen using hollow microneedles. Four types of nanoparticles covering a broad range of physiochemical parameters, namely poly (lactic-co-glycolic) (PLGA) nanoparticles, liposomes, mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) and gelatin nanoparticles (GNPs) were compared. The developed nanoparticles were loaded with a model antigen (ovalbumin (OVA)) with and without an adjuvant (poly(I:C)), followed by the characterization of size, zeta potential, morphology, and loading and release of antigen and adjuvant. An in-house developed hollow-microneedle applicator was used to inject nanoparticle suspensions precisely into murine skin at a depth of about 120μm. OVA/poly(I:C)-loaded nanoparticles and OVA/poly(I:C) solution elicited similarly strong total IgG and IgG1 responses. However, the co-encapsulation of OVA and poly(I:C) in nanoparticles significantly increased the IgG2a response compared to OVA/poly(I:C) solution. PLGA nanoparticles and liposomes induced stronger IgG2a responses than MSNs and GNPs, correlating with sustained release of the antigen and adjuvant and a smaller nanoparticle size. When examining cellular responses, the highest CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cell responses were induced by OVA/poly(I:C)-loaded liposomes. In conclusion, the applicator controlled hollow microneedle delivery is an excellent method for intradermal injection of nanoparticle vaccines, allowing selection of optimal nanoparticle formulations for humoral and cellular immune responses.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
55
29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
11
6%
Chemistry
10
5%
Engineering
9
5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
7
4%
Other
25
13%
Unknown
74
39%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 December 2020.
All research outputs
#20,155,141
of 31,710,808 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Controlled Release
#7,549
of 11,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,913
of 343,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Controlled Release
#66
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,710,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 343,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
