MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155777423 · doi:10.1586/erv.10.42

Electroporation for DNA immunization: clinical application

2010· review· en· W2155777423 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvia van Drunen Littel‐van den Hurk, D. Hannaman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsElectroporationImmunogenicityImmune systemDNA vaccinationTransfectionImmunologyAntigenGene deliveryCellBiologyMedicineImmunizationCell cultureGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA immunization is an attractive technology owing to its potential to induce balanced and long-lived immune responses. However, progress into the clinic has been hampered by the relatively low magnitude of the immune response typically induced following administration in large target species, which is likely due to low transfection efficiency as well as insufficient recruitment of antigen-presenting cells to the injection site. Electroporation addresses both of these limitations by inducing transiently enhanced cell membrane permeability, thus facilitating uptake of the DNA into the host cell and creating a low level of inflammation conducive to enhanced influx of antigen-presenting cells to the injection site. Consequently, electroporation-mediated delivery of DNA vaccines results in very significant improvements in the transfection efficiency and immune responses in comparison to conventional injection. Importantly, electroporation is effective in virtually every animal model tested to date and has a favorable safety profile, which is promising for clinical application. In support of the potential for electroporation in human disease situations, early clinical results suggest that the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines is greatly improved when delivered with electroporation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.431 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207