The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vaccine adjuvants: Current state and future trends
Abstract
The problem with pure recombinant or synthetic antigens used in modern day vaccines is that they are generally far less immunogenic than older style live or killed whole organism vaccines. This has created a major need for improved and more powerful adjuvants for use in these vaccines. With few exceptions, alum remains the sole adjuvant approved for human use in the majority of countries worldwide. Although alum is able to induce a good antibody (Th2) response, it has little capacity to stimulate cellular (Th1) immune responses which are so important for protection against many pathogens. In addition, alum has the potential to cause severe local and systemic side‐effects including sterile abscesses, eosinophilia and myofascitis, although fortunately most of the more serious side‐effects are relatively rare. There is also community concern regarding the possible role of aluminium in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there is a major unmet need for safer and more effective adjuvants suitable for human use. In particular, there is demand for safe and non‐toxic adjuvants able to stimulate cellular (Th1) immunity. Other needs in light of new vaccine technologies are adjuvants suitable for use with mucosally‐delivered vaccines, DNA vaccines, cancer and autoimmunity vaccines. Each of these areas are highly specialized with their own unique needs in respect of suitable adjuvant technology. This paper reviews the state of the art in the adjuvant field, explores future directions of adjuvant development and finally examines some of the impediments and barriers to development and registration of new human adjuvants.
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
Nanoparticle Uptake by the Rat Gastrointestinal Mucosa: Quantitation and Particle Size Dependency
Jani, P., Halbert, G. W., Langridge, J., & Florence, A. T. (1990) · Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.2042-7158.1990.tb07033.x · Cited by 920
Frey, A., Giannasca, K. T., Weltzin, R., Giannasca, P. J., Reggio, H., Lencer, W. I., & Neutra, M. R. (1996) · The Journal of experimental medicine · doi:10.1084/jem.184.3.1045 · Cited by 401
Cited by
Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials
Dobrovolskaia, M. A., & McNeil, S. E. (2007) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.223 · Cited by 1,823
Peptide-based synthetic vaccines
Skwarczynski, M., & Toth, I. (2016) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/c5sc03892h · Cited by 596
Therapeutic cancer vaccines: Are we there yet?
Klebanoff, C. A., Acquavella, N., Yu, Z., & Restifo, N. P. (2011) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1600-065x.2010.00979.x · Cited by 271
Liu, Q., Chen, X., Jia, J., Zhang, W., Yang, T., Wang, L., & Ma, G. (2015) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/nn5066793 · Cited by 233
Vaccines against Toxoplasma gondii: challenges and opportunities
Jongert, E., Roberts, C. W., Gargano, N., Förster-Waldl, E., & Petersen, E. (2009) · Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · doi:10.1590/s0074-02762009000200019 · Cited by 205
Metadata
- Authors
- Petrovsky, N., & Aguilar, J. C.
- Venue
- Immunology & Cell Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-09-28
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 488-496
- ISSN
- 0004-945X (ISSN-L)
- 0818-9641
- 1440-1711
- OpenAlex
- W2052817467
- Cited by
- 1,005
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.01
- 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: Vaccine adjuvants: Current state and future trends. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0818-9641.2004.01272.x
- The paper
- Petrovsky, N., & Aguilar, J. C. (2004). Vaccine adjuvants: Current state and future trends. Immunology & Cell Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0818-9641.2004.01272.x
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.