AAV vector distribution in the mouse respiratory tract following four different methods of administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted delivery of gene therapy vectors to the mouse respiratory tract is often performed via intranasal or intratracheal administration; however, there can be a great deal of variability between these methods, which could potentially influence experimental results. Improving the accuracy and precision of lung delivery will not only reduce the number of animals required to detect statistically significant differences, but may reduce the variability of studies from different laboratories. RESULTS: Here we evaluated three different methods of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector administration to the respiratory tract in mice (intranasal, intubation, and intratracheal injection) and discuss the advantages, challenges, and shortcomings of each. We also present a modified-intranasal delivery technique that is superior to passive administration of vector into the nares of anesthetized supine animals. Transgene expression was consistently visible in the nasal cavity, trachea, and proximal to middle aspect of all lung lobes for all four methods, whereas transgene expression was consistently observed in the most distal aspect of lung lobes only with the intubation and intratracheal injection techniques. AAV vector genome copy numbers in the lung were approximately four-fold lower in mice that received vector via intranasal administration in comparison to the other three methods of vector delivery. The modified intranasal, intubation and intratracheal injection methods of vector administration did not yield statistical differences in AAV vector genome copy numbers in the lung. With regard to reproducibility of vector distribution within and between animals, the modified-intranasal technique was superior. CONCLUSION: Our results show that mode of AAV vector administration to the murine respiratory tract should be selected based on desired target site and skill of the researcher, and that appropriate technique selection may greatly influence experimental outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".