Intranasal Immunization of Mice with a Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Induces Superior Immunity and Protection Compared to Those by Subcutaneous Delivery or Combinations of Intranasal and Subcutaneous Prime-Boost Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) infects cells of the respiratory mucosa, so it is desirable to develop a vaccination strategy that induces mucosal immunity. To achieve this, various delivery routes were compared for formalin-inactivated (FI) BRSV formulated with CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN) and polyphosphazene (PP). Intranasal delivery of the FI-BRSV formulation was superior to subcutaneous delivery in terms of antibody, cell-mediated, and mucosal immune responses, as well as reduction in virus replication after BRSV challenge. Although intranasal delivery of FI-BRSV also induced higher serum and lung antibody titers and gamma interferon (IFN-gamma) production in the lungs than intranasal-subcutaneous and/or subcutaneous-intranasal prime-boost strategies, no significant differences were observed in cell-mediated immune responses or virus replication in the lungs of challenged mice. Interleukin 5 (IL-5), eotaxin, and eosinophilia were enhanced after BRSV challenge in the lungs of subcutaneously immunized mice compared to unvaccinated mice, but not in the lungs of mice immunized intranasally or through combinations of the intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These results suggest that two intranasal immunizations with FI-BRSV formulated with CpG ODN and PP are effective and safe as an approach to induce systemic and mucosal responses, as well to reduce virus replication after BRSV challenge. Furthermore, intranasal-subcutaneous and subcutaneous-intranasal prime-boost strategies were also safe and almost as efficacious. In addition to the implications for the development of a protective BRSV vaccine for cattle, formulation with CpG ODN and PP could also prove important in the development of a mucosal vaccine that induces protective immunity against human RSV.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".