A novel intradermal tattoo-based injection device enhances the immunogenicity of plasmid DNA vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, tattooing technology has shown promising results toward evaluating vaccines in both animal models and humans. However, this technology has some limitations due to variability of experimental evaluations or operator procedures. The current study evaluated a device (intradermal oscillating needle array injection device: IONAID) capable of microinjecting a controlled dose of any aqueous vaccine into the intradermal space. IONAID-mediated administration of a DNA-based vaccine encoding the glycoprotein (GP) from the Ebola virus resulted in superior T- and B-cell responses with IONAID when compared to single intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID) injection in mice. Moreover, humoral immune responses, induced after IONAID vaccination, were significantly higher to those obtained with traditional passive DNA tattooing in guinea pigs and rabbits. This device was well tolerated and safe during HIV vaccine delivery in non-human primates (NHPs), while inducing robust immune responses. In summary, this study shows that the IONAID device improves vaccine performance, which could be beneficial to the animal and human health, and importantly, provide a dose-sparing approach (e.g., monkeypox vaccine).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".