Intranasal Boosting with an Adenovirus-Vectored Vaccine Markedly Enhances Protection by Parenteral <i>Mycobacterium bovis</i> BCG Immunization against Pulmonary Tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenterally administered Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine confers only limited immune protection from pulmonary tuberculosis in humans. There is a need for developing effective boosting vaccination strategies. We examined a heterologous prime-boost regimen utilizing BCG as a prime vaccine and our recently described adenoviral vector expressing Ag85A (AdAg85A) as a boost vaccine. Since we recently demonstrated that a single intranasal but not intramuscular immunization with AdAg85A was able to induce potent protection from pulmonary Mycobacterium tuberculosis challenge in a mouse model, we compared the protective effects of parenteral and mucosal booster immunizations following subcutaneous BCG priming. Protection by BCG prime immunization was not effectively boosted by subcutaneous BCG or intramuscular AdAg85A. In contrast, protection by BCG priming was remarkably boosted by intranasal AdAg85A. Such enhanced protection by intranasal AdAg85A was correlated to the numbers of gamma interferon-positive CD4 and CD8 T cells residing in the airway lumen of the lung. Our study demonstrates that intranasal administration of AdAg85A represents an effective way to boost immune protection by parenteral BCG vaccination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".