Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 235

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Different human vaccine adjuvants promote distinct antigen-independent immunological signatures tailored to different pathogens

Open access
Knudsen, Niels Peter H., Olsen, Anja, Buonsanti, Cecilia, Follmann, Frank, Zhang, Yuan, Coler, Rhea N., Fox, Christopher B., Meinke, Andreas, D´Oro, Ugo, Casini, Daniele, Bonci, Alessandra, Billeskov, Rolf, De Gregorio, Ennio, Rappuoli, Rino, Harandi, Ali M., Andersen, Peter, Agger, Else Marie·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The majority of vaccine candidates in clinical development are highly purified proteins and peptides relying on adjuvants to enhance and/or direct immune responses. Despite the acknowledged need for novel adjuvants, there are still very few adjuvants in licensed human vaccines. A vast number of adjuvants have been tested pre-clinically using different experimental conditions, rendering it impossible to directly compare their activity. We performed a head-to-head comparison of five different adjuvants Alum, MF59®, GLA-SE, IC31® and CAF01 in mice and combined these with antigens from M. tuberculosis, influenza and chlamydia to test immune-profiles and efficacy in infection models using standardized protocols. Regardless of antigen, each adjuvant had a unique immunological signature suggesting that the adjuvants have potential for different disease targets. Alum increased antibody titers; MF59® induced strong antibody and IL-5 responses; GLA-SE induced antibodies and Th1; CAF01 showed a mixed Th1/Th17 profile and IC31® induced strong Th1 responses. MF59® and GLA-SE were strong inducers of influenza HI titers while CAF01, GLA-SE and IC31® enhanced protection to TB and chlamydia. Importantly, this is the first extensive attempt to categorize clinical-grade adjuvants based on their immune profiles and protective efficacy to inform a rational development of next generation vaccines for human use.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/srep19570

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 235

Metadata

Authors
Knudsen, N. P. H., Olsen, A., Buonsanti, C., Follmann, F., Zhang, Y., Coler, R. N., Fox, C. B., Meinke, A., D´Oro, U., Casini, D., Bonci, A., Billeskov, R., De Gregorio, E., Rappuoli, R., Harandi, A. M., Andersen, P., & Agger, E. M.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-01-21
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
19570-19570
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2418848084
Cited by
235
References
3
FWCI
17.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Different human vaccine adjuvants promote distinct antigen-independent immunological signatures tailored to different pathogens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep19570
The paper
Knudsen, N. P. H., Olsen, A., Buonsanti, C., Follmann, F., Zhang, Y., Coler, R. N., Fox, C. B., Meinke, A., D´Oro, U., Casini, D., Bonci, A., Billeskov, R., De Gregorio, E., Rappuoli, R., Harandi, A. M., Andersen, P., & Agger, E. M. (2016). Different human vaccine adjuvants promote distinct antigen-independent immunological signatures tailored to different pathogens. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19570

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.