The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protective Immunization against Inhalational Anthrax: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Delivery Platforms
Abstract
A new anthrax vaccine under clinical investigation is based on recombinant Bacillus anthracis protective antigen (rPA). Here, we investigated microneedle-based cutaneous and nasal mucosal delivery of rPA in mice and rabbits. In mice, intradermal (id) delivery achieved up to 90% seroconversion after a single dose, compared with 20% after intramuscular (im) injection. Intranasal (inl) delivery of a liquid formulation required 3 doses to achieve responses that were comparable with those achieved via the id or im routes. In rabbits, id delivery provided complete protection against aerosol challenge with anthrax spores; in addition, novel powder formulations administered inl provided complete protection, whereas a liquid formulation provided only partial protection. These results demonstrate, for the first time, that cutaneous or nasal mucosal administration of rPA provides complete protection against inhalational anthrax in rabbits. The novel vaccine/device combinations described here have the potential to improve the efficacy of rPA and other biodefense vaccines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
McAllister, D. V., Wang, P. M., Davis, S. P., Park, J.-H., Canatella, P. J., Allen, M. G., & Prausnitz, M. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2331316100 · Cited by 859
Cited by
Microneedles for drug and vaccine delivery
Kim, Y.-C., Park, J.-H., & Prausnitz, M. R. (2012) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.04.005 · Cited by 1,760
Precise Microinjection into Skin Using Hollow Microneedles
Wang, P. M., Cornwell, M., Hill, J., & Prausnitz, M. R. (2006) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5700150 · Cited by 332
Laurent, A., Mistretta, F., Bottigioli, D., Dahel, K., Goujon, C., Nicolas, J. F., Hennino, A., & Laurent, P. E. (2007) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.05.046 · Cited by 235
Gill, H. S., & Prausnitz, M. R. (2007) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/193229680700100517 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Mikszta, J. A., Sullivan, V. J., Dean, C., Waterston, A. M., Alarcon, J. B., Dekker III, J. P., Brittingham, J. M., Huang, J., Hwang, C. R., Ferriter, M., Jiang, G., Mar, K., Saikh, K. U., Stiles, B. G., Roy, C. J., Ulrich, R. G., & Harvey, N. G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-15
- Volume
- 191
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 278-288
- ISSN
- 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6613
- OpenAlex
- W2136762747
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Protective Immunization against Inhalational Anthrax: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Delivery Platforms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/426865
- The paper
- Mikszta, J. A., Sullivan, V. J., Dean, C., Waterston, A. M., Alarcon, J. B., Dekker III, J. P., Brittingham, J. M., Huang, J., Hwang, C. R., Ferriter, M., Jiang, G., Mar, K., Saikh, K. U., Stiles, B. G., Roy, C. J., Ulrich, R. G., & Harvey, N. G. (2005). Protective Immunization against Inhalational Anthrax: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Delivery Platforms. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/426865
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.
