Cited by 416Microbial Inactivation MethodsImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

Electroporation delivery of DNA vaccines: prospects for success

Open access
Sardesai, Niranjan Y, Weiner, David B·2011·Current Opinion in Immunology

Abstract

A number of noteworthy technology advances in DNA vaccines research and development over the past few years have led to the resurgence of this field as a viable vaccine modality. Notably, these include--optimization of DNA constructs; development of new DNA manufacturing processes and formulations; augmentation of immune responses with novel encoded molecular adjuvants; and the improvement in new in vivo delivery strategies including electroporation (EP). Of these, EP mediated delivery has generated considerable enthusiasm and appears to have had a great impact in vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy by increasing antigen delivery upto a 1000 fold over naked DNA delivery alone. This increased delivery has resulted in an improved in vivo immune response magnitude as well as response rates relative to DNA delivery by direct injection alone. Indeed the immune responses and protection from pathogen challenge observed following DNA administration via EP in many cases are comparable or superior to other well studied vaccine platforms including viral vectors and live/attenuated/inactivated virus vaccines. Significantly, the early promise of EP delivery shown in numerous pre-clinical animal models of many different infectious diseases and cancer are now translating into equally enhanced immune responses in human clinical trials making the prospects for this vaccine approach to impact diverse disease targets tangible.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.coi.2011.03.008

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EP-mediated delivery of pDNA has been shown to be broadly effective.

    “Similarly, EP-mediated delivery of pDNA has been shown to be broadly effective (26) and thus was used as the benchmark for pDNA delivery.”

    From Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines (2012) · cites this paper as [26]

  • The current costs of clinical manufacturing of pDNA are on the order of $50-100 per milligram (1-10 g scale).

    “The current costs of clinical manufacturing of pDNA are on the order of $50-100 per milligram (1-10 g scale) (26).”

    From Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines (2012) · cites this paper as [26]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [66]Lee J Khan A Giffear M Diep-Lam P Zifchak L Maslow J Tebas P Sardesai NY Tolerability of EP by Cellectra device following intradermal administration of saline in healthy volunteers ASGCT Conference poster 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sardesai, N. Y., & Weiner, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Inovio Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
421-429
ISSN
0952-7915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061829061
Cited by
416
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 35
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (HHSN272200800063C)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
DNA vaccine, electroporation, vaccine immunogenicity, molecular adjuvant, antigen delivery, vaccine clinical trials, cancer vaccines, infectious disease vaccines
MeSH terms
Animals, Clinical Trials as Topic, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Immune Tolerance, Electroporation, Vaccines, DNA

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review