Vandermeulen Gaëlle, Staes Edith, Vanderhaeghen Marie Lise, Bureau Michel Francis, Scherman Daniel, Préat Véronique
Université catholique de Louvain, Unité de pharmacie galénique, Avenue Emmanuel Mounier, 73 UCL, 7320, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium.
J Control Release. 2007 Dec 4;124(1-2):81-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.08.010. Epub 2007 Aug 19.
The development of DNA vaccines requires appropriate delivery technologies. Electrotransfer is one of the most efficient methods of non-viral gene transfer. In the present study, intradermal DNA electrotransfer was first optimised. Strong effects of the injection method and the dose of DNA on luciferase expression were demonstrated. Pre-treatments were evaluated to enhance DNA diffusion in the skin but neither hyaluronidase injection nor iontophoresis improved efficiency of intradermal DNA electrotransfer. Then, DNA immunisation with a weakly immunogenic model antigen, luciferase, was investigated. After intradermal injection of the plasmid encoding luciferase, electrotransfer (HV 700 V/cm 100 micros, LV 200 V/cm 400 ms) was required to induce immune response. The response was Th1-shifted compared to immunisation with the luciferase recombinant protein. Finally, DNA electrotransfer in the skin, the muscle or the ear pinna was compared. Muscle DNA electrotransfer resulted in the highest luciferase expression and the best IgG response. Nevertheless electrotransfer into the skin, the muscle and the ear pinna all resulted in IFN-gamma secretion by luciferase-stimulated splenocytes suggesting that an efficient Th1 response was induced in all case.
J Control Release. 2007-12-4
J Control Release. 2005-9-2
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2002-12
Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2016-8-30
Curr Gene Ther. 2016
Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2016-2-9
Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2014-12-3
Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2014-9-24