2015Unpublished venueRequires access

Genetic Vaccines and Therapy

Dana Pokorná, Ivonne Rubio, Martin Müller

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Tattooing is one of a number of DNA delivery methods which results in an efficient expression of an introduced gene in the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. The tattoo procedure causes many minor mechanical injuries followed by hemorrhage, necrosis, inflammation and regeneration of the skin and thus non-specifically stimulates the immune system. DNA vaccines delivered by tattooing have been shown to induce higher specific humoral and cellular immune responses than intramuscularly injected DNA. In this study, we focused on the comparison of DNA immunization protocols using different routes of administrations of DNA (intradermal tattoo versus intramuscular injection) and molecular adjuvants (cardiotoxin pre-treatment or GM-CSF DNA codelivery). For this comparison we used the major capsid protein L1 of human papillomavirus type 16 as a model antigen. L1-specific immune responses were detected after three and four immunizations with 50 μg plasmid DNA. Cardiotoxin pretreatment or GM-CSF DNA co-delivery substantially enhanced the efficacy of DNA vaccine delivered intramuscularly by needle injection but had virtually no effect on the intradermal tattoo vaccination. The promoting effect of both adjuvants was more pronounced after three rather than four immunizations. However, three DNA tattoo immunizations without any adjuvant induced significantly higher L1-specific humoral immune responses than three or even four intramuscular DNA injections supported by molecular adjuvants. Tattooing also elicited significantly higher L1-specific cellular immune responses than intramuscularly delivered DNA in combination with adjuvants. In addition, the lymphocytes of mice treated with the tattoo device proliferated more strongly after mitogen stimulation suggesting the presence of inflammatory responses after tattooing. The tattoo delivery of DNA is a cost-effective method that may be used in laboratory conditions when more rapid and more robust immune responses are required. Introduction DNA vaccination has experienced great progress since the initial discovery of the spontaneous transfection of myocytes after intramuscular delivery of plasmid DNA in saline solution in 1990 [1]. Yet, intramuscular administration by simple injection of DNA is considered to be one of the less effective routes of DNA vaccination. The transfection of cells after single syringe injection of naked DNA Published: 7 February 2008 Genetic Vaccines and Therapy 2008, 6:4 doi:10.1186/1479-0556-6-4 Received: 9 October 2007 Accepted: 7 February 2008 This article is available from: http://www.gvt-journal.com/content/6/1/4 © 2008 Pokorna et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Tattooing is one of a number of DNA delivery methods which results in an efficient expression of an introduced gene in the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. The tattoo procedure causes many minor mechanical injuries followed by hemorrhage, necrosis, inflammation and regeneration of the skin and thus non-specifically stimulates the immune system. DNA vaccines delivered by tattooing have been shown to induce higher specific humoral and cellular immune responses than intramuscularly injected DNA. In this study, we focused on the comparison of DNA immunization protocols using different routes of administrations of DNA (intradermal tattoo versus intramuscular injection) and molecular adjuvants (cardiotoxin pre-treatment or GM-CSF DNA codelivery). For this comparison we used the major capsid protein L1 of human papillomavirus type 16 as a model antigen. L1-specific immune responses were detected after three and four immunizations with 50 μg plasmid DNA. Cardiotoxin pretreatment or GM-CSF DNA co-delivery substantially enhanced the efficacy of DNA vaccine delivered intramuscularly by needle injection but had virtually no effect on the intradermal tattoo vaccination. The promoting effect of both adjuvants was more pronounced after three rather than four immunizations. However, three DNA tattoo immunizations without any adjuvant induced significantly higher L1-specific humoral immune responses than three or even four intramuscular DNA injections supported by molecular adjuvants. Tattooing also elicited significantly higher L1-specific cellular immune responses than intramuscularly delivered DNA in combination with adjuvants. In addition, the lymphocytes of mice treated with the tattoo device proliferated more strongly after mitogen stimulation suggesting the presence of inflammatory responses after tattooing. The tattoo delivery of DNA is a cost-effective method that may be used in laboratory conditions when more rapid and more robust immune responses are required. Introduction DNA vaccination has experienced great progress since the initial discovery of the spontaneous transfection of myocytes after intramuscular delivery of plasmid DNA in saline solution in 1990 [1]. Yet, intramuscular administration by simple injection of DNA is considered to be one of the less effective routes of DNA vaccination. The transfection of cells after single syringe injection of naked DNA Published: 7 February 2008 Genetic Vaccines and Therapy 2008, 6:4 doi:10.1186/1479-0556-6-4 Received: 9 October 2007 Accepted: 7 February 2008 This article is available from: http://www.gvt-journal.com/content/6/1/4 © 2008 Pokorna et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Tattooing is one of a number of DNA delivery methods which results in an efficient expression of an introduced gene in the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. The tattoo procedure causes many minor mechanical injuries followed by hemorrhage, necrosis, inflammation and regeneration of the skin and thus non-specifically stimulates the immune system. DNA vaccines delivered by tattooing have been shown to induce higher specific humoral and cellular immune responses than intramuscularly injected DNA. In this study, we focused on the comparison of DNA immunization protocols using different routes of administrations of DNA (intradermal tattoo versus intramuscular injection) and molecular adjuvants (cardiotoxin pre-treatment or GM-CSF DNA codelivery). For this comparison we used the major capsid protein L1 of human papillomavirus type 16 as a model antigen. L1-specific immune responses were detected after three and four immunizations with 50 μg plasmid DNA. Cardiotoxin pretreatment or GM-CSF DNA co-delivery substantially enhanced the efficacy of DNA vaccine delivered intramuscularly by needle injection but had virtually no effect on the intradermal tattoo vaccination. The promoting effect of both adjuvants was more pronounced after three rather than four immunizations. However, three DNA tattoo immunizations without any adjuvant induced significantly higher L1-specific humoral immune responses than three or even four intramuscular DNA injections supported by molecular adjuvants. Tattooing also elicited significantly higher L1-specific cellular immune responses than intramuscularly delivered DNA in combination with adjuvants. In addition, the lymphocytes of mice treated with the tattoo device proliferated more strongly after mitogen stimulation suggesting the presence of inflammatory responses after tattooing. The tattoo delivery of DNA is a cost-effective method that may be used in laboratory conditions when more rapid and more robust immune responses are required. Introduction DNA vaccination has experienced great progress since the initial discovery of the spontaneous transfection of myocytes after intramuscular delivery of plasmid DNA in saline solution in 1990 [1]. Yet, intramuscular administration by simple injection of DNA is considered to be one of the less effective routes of DNA vaccination. The transfection of cells after single syringe injection of naked DNA Published: 7 February 2008 Genetic Vaccines and Therapy 2008, 6:4 doi:10.1186/1479-0556-6-4 Received: 9 October 2007 Accepted: 7 February 2008 This article is available from: http://www.gvt-journal.com/content/6/1/4 © 2008 Pokorna et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Key concepts: DNA vaccination, Immune system, Gene gun, Adjuvant, Naked DNA, Immunology, Intradermal injection, Medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Genetic Vaccines and Therapy — Research Paper | ScholarLens