Cited by 98Immunotherapy and Immune ResponsesRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryMicrobial Inactivation Methods

Intradermal Electroporation of Naked Replicon RNA Elicits Strong Immune Responses

Open access
Johansson, Daniel X., Ljungberg, Karl, Kakoulidou, Maria, Liljeström, Peter·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

RNA-based vaccines represent an interesting immunization modality, but suffer from poor stability and a lack of efficient and clinically feasible delivery technologies. This study evaluates the immunogenic potential of naked in vitro transcribed Semliki Forest virus replicon RNA (RREP) delivered intradermally in combination with electroporation. Replicon-immunized mice showed a strong cellular and humoral response, contrary to mice immunized with regular mRNA. RREP-elicited induction of interferon-γ secreting CD8+ T cells and antibody responses were significantly increased by electroporation. CD8+ T cell responses remained substantial five weeks post vaccination, and antigen-specific CD8+ T cells with phenotypic characteristics of both effector and central memory cells were identified. The immune response during the contraction phase was further increased by a booster immunization, and the proportion of effector memory cells increased significantly. These results demonstrate that naked RREP delivered via intradermal electroporation constitute an immunogenic, safe and attractive alternative immunization strategy to DNA-based vaccines.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0029732

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Injection of naked mRNA or self-amplifying RNA in vivo induces gene expression and generates immune responses, with self-amplifying RNA being more efficient for gene expression in situ.

    “Injection of naked mRNA or self-amplifying RNA in vivo induces gene expression and generates immune responses (4, 11-13), with self-amplifying RNA being more efficient for gene expression in situ (13,14).”

    From Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines (2012) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Results section ('Relative expression levels and cellular immune response'; page unavailable) reports in vivo gene expression from both mRNA and replicon RNA, with lower, shorter-lived expression from mRNA. Replicon RNA elicited immune responses, but naked mRNA produced no detectable specific immune response in this study's single-injection experiments. The Introduction does report immune responses to mRNA vaccination in other studies, so the broad claim is supported only with that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There are limited published data on the in vivo delivery of self-amplifying RNA using nonviral delivery strategies, and none has taken advantage of the recently developed, clinically suitable delivery systems for siRNA.

    “There are limited published data on the in vivo delivery of self-amplifying RNA using nonviral delivery strategies (3,14,18), and none has taken advantage of the recently developed, clinically suitable delivery systems for siRNA (19,20).”

    From Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines (2012) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johansson, D. X., Ljungberg, K., Kakoulidou, M., & Liljeström, P.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Johansson, Daniel X.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-01-04
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e29732
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057294180
Cited by
98
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Styrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
Keywords
RNA vaccines, Semliki Forest virus, in vitro transcribed RNA, CD8+ T cell responses, interferon-gamma, humoral antibody response, central memory T cells, effector memory T cells, booster vaccination, vaccine delivery
MeSH terms
Administration, Cutaneous, Animals, Feasibility Studies, Immunity, Cellular, Immunization, Immunologic Memory, Luciferases, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Replicon, RNA, Viral, Semliki forest virus, Genes, Reporter, Electroporation, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Mice

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