Assessing Neutralized Nicotine Distribution Using Mice Vaccinated with the Mucosal Conjugate Nicotine Vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobacco smoking continues to be a global epidemic and the leading preventable cause of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Nicotine vaccines have been investigated as an alternative to currently available smoking cessation strategies as a means to increase rates of success and long-term abstinence. Recently, we demonstrated that a mucosal nicotine vaccine was able to induce robust mucosal and systemic antibodies when delivered heterologously using intranasal and intramuscular routes. Herein, we investigated the neutralization ability of the anti-nicotine antibodies using both intranasal and intracardiac nicotine challenges. Combining the extraction of lyophilized organ samples with RP-HPLC methods, we were able to recover between 47% and 56% of the nicotine administered from the blood, brain, heart, and lungs up to 10 min after challenge, suggesting that the interaction of the antibodies with nicotine forms a stable complex independently of the route of vaccination or challenge. Although both challenge routes can be used for assessing systemic antibodies, only the intranasal administration of nicotine, which is more physiologically similar to the inhalation of nicotine, permitted the crucial interaction of nicotine with the mucosal antibodies generated using the heterologous vaccination route. Notably, these results were obtained 6 months after the final vaccination, demonstrating stable mucosal and systemic antibody responses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".