4.5 Article

Starch microparticles as an adjuvant in immunisation:: effect of route of administration on the immune response in mice

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 22, Issue 21-22, Pages 2863-2872

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2003.12.019

Keywords

microparticles; vaccine adjuvant; oral immunisation; parenteral immunisation; Th1/Th2 differentiation; mucosal immune response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes the effects on the development of an immune response by changing the route of administration of a new vaccine adjuvant, starch microparticles with human serum albumin (HSA) as a model antigen. The model vaccine was administered to mice by oral, subcutaneous and intramuscular routes in various combinations and both the local secretory immunoglobulin antibody (s-IgA) and systemic Immoral and cellular (delayed-type hypersensitivity assay (DTH)) responses were followed. The only immunisation regimens inducing a significant s-IgA response were those incorporating oral booster doses. Oral and subcutaneous immunisations had similar effects on the Th1/Th2 balance, as indicated by the IgG subclass ratios and cytokine analyses. However, significant differences between oral and intramuscular immunisations were seen in the IgG subclass ratios. The Th2 influence was stronger after oral primary immunisation than after intramuscular primary immunisation, while oral boosters elicited a comparatively stronger Th1 response than intramuscular boosters. This result was also supported by the DTH analyses. Subcutaneous immunisation induced a stronger Th2 response than intramuscular immunisation, as indicated by subclass ratio and the IgE response. In conclusion, our results show that the profile of an immune response depends on the route of administration, which should be considered when developing new vaccines or new routes of administration. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available