Parenteral and mucosal prime-boost immunization strategies in mice with hepatitis B surface antigen and CpG DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN) containing immunostimulatory CpG motifs (CpG ODN) are potent adjuvants to protein antigens administered by parenteral or mucosal routes to BALB/c mice. To date, there have been no studies using combined parenteral/mucosal approaches with CpG DNA as adjuvant. In this study we evaluated different parenteral prime-mucosal boost and mucosal prime-parenteral boost strategies using hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) alone or with different adjuvants: aluminum hydroxide (alum), cholera toxin (CT), CpG ODN. In addition, since CpG ODN has previously been shown to act synergistically with other adjuvants after parenteral or mucosal delivery, we also evaluated adjuvant combinations: alum+CpG ODN and CT+CpG ODN. The effects of adjuvant and administration strategy on systemic and mucosal humoral responses were measured, as well as cell-mediated immune responses (cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity). These results were compared to parenteral only or mucosal only strategies. Our findings demonstrate that parenteral immunization can prime for mucosal responses even when different lymph nodes were being targeted. HBsAg-specific immune responses (IgG in plasma, cytotoxic T lymphocytes) induced by parenteral prime could all be significantly enhanced by mucosal boosting and despite the fact that intramuscular immunization alone could not induce mucosal IgA, it could prime for a subsequent mucosal boost. In addition, the presence of adjuvant at time of boosting could influence the nature of subsequent immune responses (Th1 vs. Th2). Mice primed intranasally could have their systemic immune responses boosted with a parenteral administration and it was also possible to enhance mucosal responses induced by intranasal prime with an intramuscular boost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".