Differential Biodistribution of Adenoviral-Vectored Vaccine Following Intranasal and Endotracheal Deliveries Leads to Different Immune Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious diseases of the respiratory tract are one of the top causes of global morbidity and mortality with lower respiratory tract infections being the fourth leading cause of death. The respiratory mucosal (RM) route of vaccine delivery represents a promising strategy against respiratory infections. Although both intranasal and inhaled aerosol methods have been established for human application, there is a considerable knowledge gap in the relationship of vaccine biodistribution to immune efficacy in the lung. Here, by using a murine model and an adenovirus-vectored model vaccine, we have compared the intranasal and endotracheal delivery methods in their biodistribution, immunogenicity and protective efficacy. We find that compared to intranasal delivery, the deepened and widened biodistribution in the lung following endotracheal delivery is associated with much improved vaccine-mediated immunogenicity and protection against the target pathogen. Our findings thus support further development of inhaled aerosol delivery of vaccines over intranasal delivery for human application.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".