2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.070
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mucosal immunisation of mice with malaria protein on lactic acid bacterial cell walls

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
11
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…However, public fear of using an attenuated pathogen as a vaccine carrier has deterred its acceptance. Recent studies have shown that oral administration of a number of lactobacilli expressing recombinant immunogens induces local mucosal (42) and systemic antibody responses (62). Other studies have explored this further and showed that immune responses induced via lactobacilli delivered through oral vaccination confer some protection against challenge with the respective pathogen (27,31,32,60).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, public fear of using an attenuated pathogen as a vaccine carrier has deterred its acceptance. Recent studies have shown that oral administration of a number of lactobacilli expressing recombinant immunogens induces local mucosal (42) and systemic antibody responses (62). Other studies have explored this further and showed that immune responses induced via lactobacilli delivered through oral vaccination confer some protection against challenge with the respective pathogen (27,31,32,60).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ELISPOT assay: At 14 days post final immunization, the mesenteric lymph nodes (MLN), spleen (SP) and Peyer's patches (PP) of mice (n=3) from each group were removed and disrupted by sterile gauze as previously described [12,14]. The results are expressed as the number of antigenspecific ASCs per 10 7 cells.…”
Section: Preparation Of Recombinant L Lactis For Immunization: Lmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second major advantage of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery vehicle is that, in addition to its efficient elicitation of antigen-specific mucosal immune responses, it also reduces the potential side effects common to systemic routes of administration. The immune response elicited against the L. lactis vector itself is only a weak one, while the major immune responses are directed primarily against the heterologously expressed antigens (5,7). Therefore, the possibility of a strong immune response against the vaccine carrier, diminishing the response against the heterologous antigens, is avoided.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%