Mucosal Delivery of Adenovirus‐Based Vaccine Protects against Ebola Virus Infection in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mucosal vaccination can offer several advantages over conventional intramuscular immunization to protect against Ebola virus (EBOV) infection, such as immune protection at sites of viral entry into susceptible individuals, and can be administered using needle-free devices. METHODS: The present study evaluated oral and nasal vaccination of mice with human adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad) expressing the Zaire ebolavirus glycoprotein (Ad-ZGP) in terms of their protection against and underlying immune responses to EBOV. RESULTS: Similar to intramuscular administration, oral or nasal vaccination of mice with Ad-ZGP fully protected the mice against a lethal challenge with mouse-adapted EBOV. Both T and B cell responses developed in mice receiving oral or nasal vaccination in different body compartments, indicating qualitative improvement of the immune response after mucosal immunization, compared with intramuscular vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the breadth of the immune response noted after nasal or oral immunization, including stimulation of CD8+ T cells or effector memory T cells from the gastrointestinal tract or the lungs, was superior to that noted after intramuscular administration of the vaccine. The present study showed that adenovirus-based vaccine is effective against EBOV infection in mice after oral and nasal immunization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".