Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(10):e148494. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.148494.
Abstract
Effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are urgently needed. Although most vaccine strategies have focused on systemic immunization, here we compared the protective efficacy of 2 adjuvanted subunit vaccines with spike protein S1: an intramuscularly primed/boosted vaccine and an intramuscularly primed/intranasally boosted mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques. The intramuscular-alum–only vaccine induced robust binding and neutralizing antibody and persistent cellular immunity systemically and mucosally, whereas intranasal boosting with nanoparticles, including IL-15 and TLR agonists, elicited weaker T cell and Ab responses but higher dimeric IgA and IFN-α. Nevertheless, following SARS-CoV-2 challenge, neither group showed detectable subgenomic RNA in upper or lower respiratory tracts versus naive controls, indicating full protection against viral replication. Although mucosal and systemic protective mechanisms may differ, results demonstrate both vaccines can protect against respiratory SARS-CoV-2 exposure. In summary, we have demonstrated that the mucosal vaccine was safe after multiple doses and cleared the input virus more efficiently in the nasal cavity and thus may act as a potent complementary reinforcing boost for conventional systemic vaccines to provide overall better protection.
Authors
Yongjun Sui, Jianping Li, Roushu Zhang, Sunaina Kiran Prabhu, Hanne Andersen, David Venzon, Anthony Cook, Renita Brown, Elyse Teow, Jason Velasco, Jack Greenhouse, Tammy Putman-Taylor, Tracey-Ann Campbell, Laurent Pessaint, Ian N. Moore, Laurel Lagenaur, Jim Talton, Matthew W. Breed, Josh Kramer, Kevin W. Bock, Mahnaz Minai, Bianca M. Nagata, Mark G. Lewis, Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 629 | 236 |
| 45 | 57 | |
| Figure | 106 | 6 |
| Supplemental data | 26 | 1 |
| Citation downloads | 37 | 0 |
| Totals | 843 | 300 |
| Total Views | 1,143 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
