CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Codon optimization of antigen coding sequences improves the immune potential of DNA vaccines against avian influenza virus H5N1 in mice and chickens

Stachyra, Anna, Redkiewicz, Patrycja, Kosson, Piotr, Protasiuk, Anna, Góra-Sochacka, Anna, Kudla, Grzegorz, Sirko, Agnieszka·2016·Virology Journal
DOI 10.1186/s12985-016-0599-yPMC PMC5000471
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1186/s12985-016-0599-y

Cites

1 of 1 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

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?

  • Elements including relative frequencies of codon use, local and global GC composition, mRNA secondary structure stability, and presence of cryptic termination signals or splice sites are significant factors impacting protein expression.

    “elements including the relative frequencies of codon use for each amino acid, local and global GC composition, mRNA secondary structure stability, and the presence of cryptic termination signals or splice sites are significant factors impacting the degree of protein expression”

    From Codon optimization is an essential parameter for the efficient allotopic expression of mtDNA genes (2020) · cites this paper as [63]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Wong SS, Webby RJ. Traditional and new influenza vaccines. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:476–92. · DOI
  2. Gerdil C. The annual production cycle for influenza vaccine. Vaccine. 2003;21:1776–9. · DOI
  3. Khan KH. DNA vaccines: roles against diseases. Germs. 2013;3:26–35. · DOI
  4. Trovato M, Berardinis PD. Novel antigen delivery systems. World J Virol. 2015;4:156–68. · DOI
  5. Ledgerwood JE, Hu Z, Costner P, Yamshchikov G, Enama ME, Plummer S, Hendel CS, Holman L, Larkin B, Gordon I, et al. Phase I Clinical Evaluation of Seasonal Influenza Hemagglutinin (HA) DNA Vaccine Prime Followed by Trivalent Influenza Inactivated Vaccine (IIV3) Boost. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;44:112-18. · DOI
  6. Kibuuka H, Berkowitz NM, Millard M, Enama ME, Tindikahwa A, Sekiziyivu AB, Costner P, Sitar S, Glover D, Hu Z, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ebola virus and marburg virus glycoprotein DNA vaccines assessed separately and concomitantly in healthy ugandan adults: a phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1545–54. · DOI
  7. Stachyra A, Góra-Sochacka A, Sirko A. DNA vaccines against influenza. Acta Biochim Pol. 2014;61:515–22.
  8. Wang S, Taaffe J, Parker C, Solorzano A, Cao H, Garcia-Sastre A, Lu S. Hemagglutinin (HA) proteins from H1 and H3 serotypes of influenza a viruses require different antigen designs for the induction of optimal protective antibody responses as studied by codon-optimized HA DNA vaccines. J Virol. 2006;80:11628–37. · DOI
  9. Tenbusch M, Grunwald T, Niezold T, Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann M, Hannaman D, Norley S, Uberla K. Codon-optimization of the hemagglutinin gene from the novel swine origin H1N1 influenza virus has differential effects on CD4(+) T-cell responses and immune effector mechanisms following DNA electroporation in mice. Vaccine. 2010;28:3273–7. · DOI
  10. Ault A, Zajac AM, Kong WP, Gorres JP, Royals M, Wei CJ, Bao S, Yang ZY, Reedy SE, Sturgill TL, et al. Immunogenicity and clinical protection against equine influenza by DNA vaccination of ponies. Vaccine. 2012;30:3965–74. · DOI
  11. Sonnberg S, Webby RJ, Webster RG. Natural history of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1. Virus Res. 2013;178:63–77. · DOI
  12. Palese P. Influenza: old and new threats. Nat Med. 2004;10:S82–7. · DOI
  13. Jiang Y, Yu K, Zhang H, Zhang P, Li C, Tian G, Li Y, Wang X, Ge J, Bu Z, Chen H. Enhanced protective efficacy of H5 subtype avian influenza DNA vaccine with codon optimized HA gene in a pCAGGS plasmid vector. Antiviral Res. 2007;75:234–41. · DOI
  14. Li JP, Jiang YP, Zhao SC, Chang XF, Liu JX, Zeng XY, Li YB, Chen HL. Protective efficacy of an H5N1 DNA vaccine against challenge with a lethal H5N1 virus in quail. Avian Dis. 2012;56:937–9. · DOI
  15. Shan S, Jiang Y, Bu Z, Ellis T, Zeng X, Edwards J, Tian G, Li Y, Ge J, Chen H, Fenwick S. Strategies for improving the efficacy of a H6 subtype avian influenza DNA vaccine in chickens. J Virol Methods. 2011;173:220–6. · DOI
  16. Rao S, Kong WP, Wei CJ, Yang ZY, Nason M, Styles D, DeTolla LJ, Panda A, Sorrell EM, Song H, et al. Multivalent HA DNA vaccination protects against highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza infection in chickens and mice. PLoS One. 2008;3:e2432. · DOI
  17. Chen MW, Cheng TJ, Huang Y, Jan JT, Ma SH, Yu AL, Wong CH, Ho DD. A consensus-hemagglutinin-based DNA vaccine that protects mice against divergent H5N1 influenza viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:13538–43. · DOI
  18. Goetz RM, Fuglsang A. Correlation of codon bias measures with mRNA levels: analysis of transcriptome data from escherichia coli. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;327:4–7. · DOI
  19. Han JS, Boeke JD. A highly active synthetic mammalian retrotransposon. Nature. 2004;429:314–8. · DOI
  20. Nguyen KL, Llano M, Akari H, Miyagi E, Poeschla EM, Strebel K, Bour S. Codon optimization of the HIV-1 vpu and vif genes stabilizes their mRNA and allows for highly efficient Rev-independent expression. Virology. 2004;319:163–75. · DOI
  21. Stachyra A, Góra-Sochacka A, Sawicka R, Florys K, Sączyńska V, Olszewska M, Pikuła A, Śmietanka K, Minta Z, Szewczyk B, et al. Highly immunogenic prime–boost DNA vaccination protects chickens against challenge with homologous and heterologous H5N1 virus. Trials Vaccinology. 2014;3:40–6. · DOI
  22. Stachyra A, Gora-Sochacka A, Zagorski-Ostoja W, Krol E, Sirko A. Antibody response to DNA vaccine against H5N1 avian influenza virus in broilers immunized according to three schedules. Acta Biochim Pol. 2014;61:593–6.
  23. Shan S, Ellis T, Edwards J, Fenwick S, Robertson I. Comparison of five expression vectors for the Ha gene in constructing a DNA vaccine for H6N2 influenza virus in chickens. Adv Microbiol. 2016;6:310–9. · DOI
  24. Uchijima M, Yoshida A, Nagata T, Koide Y. Optimization of codon usage of plasmid DNA vaccine is required for the effective MHC class I-restricted T cell responses against an intracellular bacterium. J Immunol. 1998;161:5594–9. · DOI
  25. Deml L, Bojak A, Steck S, Graf M, Wild J, Schirmbeck R, Wolf H, Wagner R. Multiple effects of codon usage optimization on expression and immunogenicity of DNA candidate vaccines encoding the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Gag protein. J Virol. 2001;75:10991–1001. · DOI
  26. Siegismund CS, Hohn O, Kurth R, Norley S. Enhanced T- and B-cell responses to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV)agm, SIVmac and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Gag DNA immunization and identification of novel T-cell epitopes in mice via codon optimization. J Gen Virol. 2009;90:2513–8. · DOI
  27. Harrington LE, Hatton RD, Mangan PR, Turner H, Murphy TL, Murphy KM, Weaver CT. Interleukin 17-producing CD4+ effector T cells develop via a lineage distinct from the T helper type 1 and 2 lineages. Nat Immunol. 2005;6:1123–32. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Conlon PJ, Tyler S, Grabstein KH, Morrissey P. Interleukin-4 (B-cell stimulatory factor-1) augments the in vivo generation of cytotoxic cells in immunosuppressed animals. Biotechnol Ther. 1989;1:31–41.
  29. Rao YS, Chai XW, Wang ZF, Nie QH, Zhang XQ. Impact of GC content on gene expression pattern in chicken. Genet Sel Evol. 2013;45:9. · DOI
  30. Andre S, Seed B, Eberle J, Schraut W, Bultmann A, Haas J. Increased immune response elicited by DNA vaccination with a synthetic gp120 sequence with optimized codon usage. J Virol. 1998;72:1497–503. · DOI
  31. Zolotukhin S, Potter M, Hauswirth WW, Guy J, Muzyczka N. A “humanized” green fluorescent protein cDNA adapted for high-level expression in mammalian cells. J Virol. 1996;70:4646–54. · DOI
  32. Buzała M, Janicki B, Czarnecki R. Consequences of different growth rates in broiler breeder and layer hens on embryogenesis, metabolism and metabolic rate: a review. Poult Sci. 2015;94:728–33. · DOI
  33. Groves PJ, Sharpe SM, Cox JM. Response of layer and broiler strain chickens to parenteral administration of a live salmonella typhimurium vaccine. Poult Sci. 2015;94:1512–20. · DOI
  34. Penha Filho RA, de Paiva JB, Arguello YM, da Silva MD, Gardin Y, Resende F, Berchieri Junior AB, Sesti L. Efficacy of several vaccination programmes in commercial layer and broiler breeder hens against experimental challenge with salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis. Avian Pathol. 2009;38:367–75. · DOI
  35. Koenen ME, Boonstra-Blom AG, Jeurissen SH. Immunological differences between layer- and broiler-type chickens. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2002;89:47–56. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stachyra, A., Redkiewicz, P., Kosson, P., Protasiuk, A., Góra-Sochacka, A., Kudla, G., & Sirko, A.
ORCID
Sirko, Agnieszka
Venue
Virology Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-08-26
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
1743-422X
DOI
10.1186/s12985-016-0599-y
PMC
PMC5000471
Cited by
42
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • Narodowe Centrum Bada i Rozwoju (WND-POIG.01.01.02-00-007/08, PBS2/A7/14/2014)
  • Wellcome Trust (097383)
  • Medical Research Council

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