Cited by 97Smoking Behavior and CessationMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Vaccination against nicotine during continued nicotine administration in rats: immunogenicity of the vaccine and effects on nicotine distribution to brain

Hieda, Y, Keyler, D.E, Ennifar, S, Fattom, A, Pentel, P.R·2000·International Journal of Immunopharmacology

Abstract

Vaccination against nicotine has been proposed as a potential treatment for nicotine dependence. Because vaccination may take months to elicit satisfactory antibody levels, the clinical usefulness of this approach will be enhanced if vaccination can be accomplished during continued nicotine intake (e.g., before a smoker quits). The current study examined the immunogenicity of a nicotine conjugate vaccine during continued nicotine dosing in rats, and its effects on nicotine distribution to brain. In the first experiment, nicotine was administered over 11 weeks as 20 intra venous (i.v.) bolus injections per day during the rat's active cycle to simulate the usual pattern of nicotine intake from cigarette smoking. In the second experiment, rats received a continuous s.c. infusion of nicotine by osmotic pump for 11 weeks to provide serum nicotine concentrations equivalent to those of a heavy smoker and 24 h/day nicotine exposure. Nicotine-specific antibody titers after the third booster dose were not compromised by either regimen of concurrent nicotine administration compared to those of rats receiving saline. A single additional i.v. nicotine dose was administered at the end of each experiment. The distribution of this single nicotine dose to brain was reduced by 40-60% in vaccinated rats compared to controls. Vaccine efficacy in reducing nicotine distribution to brain was not compromised by concurrent nicotine administration. These data suggest that vaccination during concurrent nicotine administration is feasible, and that the ability of vaccination to reduce nicotine distribution to brain is preserved even after months of nicotine dosing at rates approximating cigarette smoking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0192-0561(00)00042-4

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • These results confirm other studies using non-inhalation routes of administration.

    “These results confirm other studies using non-inhalation routes of administration [250–252].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [250]

  • With a 10-minute nose-only exposure modeling one cigarette, brain levels of nicotine were reduced by 90% in vaccinated animals.

    “With a 10 minute nose-only exposure, modeling one cigarette, brain levels of nicotine were reduced by 90% in the vaccinated animals.”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [249]

  • After a 2-hour whole-body exposure to smoke, a 35% reduction in brain nicotine was detected in vaccinated animals.

    “After a 2 hour whole body exposure to smoke, a 35% reduction in brain nicotine was detected [249].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [249]

  • After immunization using Pseudomonas exoprotein A conjugated to nicotine, rats exposed to cigarette smoke demonstrated a significant increase in serum nicotine levels, indicating prevention of nicotine entry into the brain.

    “After immunization using Pseudomonas exoprotein A conjugated to nicotine, rats exposed to cigarette smoke demonstrated a significant increase in serum nicotine levels, indicating prevention of nicotine entry into the brain.”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [249]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hieda, Y., Keyler, D. E., Ennifar, S., Fattom, A., & Pentel, P. R.
Affiliations
Hennepin County Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Pentel, P.R
Venue
International Journal of Immunopharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-10
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
809-819
ISSN
0192-0561 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051268821
Cited by
97
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Immunopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA010714, DA10714)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
nicotine dependence, immunogenicity, osmotic pump, nicotine self-administration, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Immunoglobulin E, Immunization, Injections, Subcutaneous, Nicotine, Radioimmunoassay, Vaccination, Nicotinic Agonists, Rats

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