4.8 Article

In situ engineering of the lymph node microenvironment via intranodal injection of adjuvant-releasing polymer particles

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1105200108

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  3. Harvard and The Gates Foundation
  4. National Cancer Institute [P30-CA14051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have demonstrated a simple, potentially universal strategy to enhance vaccine potency, via intralymph node (i.LN) injection. To date, intranodal immunization studies have focused on the delivery of unadjuvanted vaccines (e. g., naked DNA, peptide, or protein). We hypothesized that combining i.LN vaccination with controlled release biomaterials permitting sustained dosing of molecular adjuvants to the local tissue microenvironment would further enhance this promising vaccination strategy. To test this idea, we encapsulated the Toll-like receptor-3 ligand poly(inosiniccytidylic acid) (polyIC) in biodegradable poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microparticles (MPs) designed to remain extracellular and release polyIC in the LN over several days. Intranodal injection of MPs increased persistence of polyIC in LNs compared to the same dose of soluble polyIC or polyIC formulated in nanoparticles, leading to increased accumulation of Toll-like receptor agonist in LN-resident antigen presenting cells and more enduring dendritic cell activation. Intralymph node injection of ovalbumin mixed with polyIC-releasing MPs enhanced the humoral response and expanded ovalbumin-specific T cells to frequencies as high as 18% among all CD8(+) cells following a single injection (8.2-fold greater than the same vaccine given i.m.), a response that could not be matched by antigen mixed with polyIC-loaded nanoparticles or a 10-fold greater dose of soluble polyIC. Thus, i.LN immunization with slow release-formulated adjuvants may be a broadly applicable strategy to enhance therapeutic or prophylactic vaccines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据