Figure

Copy Reference
Copy Caption
Copy Embed code
Tattooing procedure of human skin (A) and typical expression of luciferase (B), visualized with a light-sensitive camera, 18 hr after tattooing. Each area of 50 mm 2 was tattooed with a different tattoo setting. Note the marked variation in luciferase signal obtained under different vaccination conditions.
This figure appears in
Context 1
... expression could readily be detected with a light-sensitive camera and expression was restricted to the areas of tattooing (Fig. 3B). Expression was observed at sig- nificant levels as early as 2 hr after tattooing, indicating that DNA transfection, translation, and expression of the protein take place rapidly after DNA tattooing. Luciferase expression peaked between 2 and 18 hr after tattooing and remained detectable for approximately 2-3 days (Fig. 4). On the ...

Citations

Research Items (48)
... In these skin damage models, sensitization occurs comparable to tattooing strategies that are used to improve vaccination efficiency during the induction of a protective immune response. 47 As repeatedly demonstrated in intraperitoneal oval- bumin sensitization models, skin sensitization also results in the production of allergen-specific IgE and IgG1 anti- bodies. 48 Furthermore, ex vivo cultured cells isolated from the axillary, subscapular, and inguinal draining lymph nodes of ovalbumin exposed mice produced increased amounts of IL4 in the presence of the allergen. ...
... Mechanisms by which DNA vaccines induce in vivo antigenspecific immunity are still the subject of intense research. Antigen encoding-DNA can be introduced into the body by intramuscular or intradermal inoculation through a variety of delivery tools, including intramuscular injection with or without in vivo electroporation [9], intradermal injection by gene gun [10], tattooing [11], microneedles [12], or low-frequency ultrasound [13]. At the inoculum locus, upon reaching the nucleus of the transfected cell, which may be a myocyte, primary keratinocyte, or even a resident antigen-presenting cell (APC), the antigen gene is processed by cell expression machinery ( Figure 1). ...
... This strategy was shown to lead to a more rapid induction of cellular immunity as compared to conventional application methods of DNA vaccination in mice [20]. Furthermore, DNA tattooing outperforms classical intramuscular DNA vaccination by 10-to 100-fold when tested in non-human primates [21] and was optimized in an ex vivo human skin model [22]. ...
... Even though intramuscular and intradermal direct administration of DNA vaccines is used extensively, device-mediated immunization is widespread, in particular electroporation. Tattoo devices are used to transfect cells of the dermal layer of the skin (van den Berg et al. 2009). A short needle or a bundle of needles moving at high frequency punctures the skin and releases the DNA or peptide vaccine over a large area, but involves a painful and complex procedure. ...
... Assuming an equal efficacy of rSFV infection in skin and muscle and assuming that 100% of the rSFV particles administered intramuscularly indeed transfect cells, this would mean that approximately 10% of the rSFV particles applied for tattooing actually enter the skin and transfect cells. This falls in line with the wide range of expression level observed by van den Berg et al [28]. The authors showed that DNA tattooing resulted in 10 to 100 lower antigen expression levels at the site of vaccination in comparison to intramuscular DNA injection. ...
... More recently, DNA vaccination by tattoo induced full protection against bacterial challenge in mice in a rapid vaccination protocol [71]. A recent work developed an ex vivo human skin model to determine the factors that control vaccine-induced antigen expression and define the optimal parameters for the evaluation of DNA tattooing in Phase I clinical trials [72]. ...
... More recently, DNA vaccination by tattoo induced full protection against bacterial challenge in mice in a rapid vaccination protocol [71]. A recent work developed an ex vivo human skin model to determine the factors that control vaccine-induced antigen expression and define the optimal parameters for the evaluation of DNA tattooing in Phase I clinical trials [72]. ...
... Les systèmes utilisant des courtes aiguilles de l'ordre de 1 mm oscillant à haute fréquence, généralement utilisés pour les tatouages peuvent également être utilisés pour l'administration des vaccins ADN dans la peau (Kis et al., 2012;van den Berg et al., 2009) (Figure 7). Ce système présente l'avantage majeur de pouvoir délivrer le vaccin ADN dans une large surface cutanée pour potentiellement transfecter un nombre de cellules plus important (Kis et al., 2012). ...
... 15 Intradermal delivery methods for DNA include injection with a hypodermic needle, bombardment of the skin with DNA-coated gold particles ejected from a gene gun, topical application, electroporation, and tattooing. [18][19][20][21][22] Tattooing has the advantage of being relatively inexpensive and rapid, and the infliction of thousands of perforations likely serves as an adjuvant. Work by the Haanen group demonstrated that pDNA delivery to the skin via tattooing elicited more rapid and robust immune responses specific for the pDNA-encoded Ags than did intramuscular delivery. ...
... Hypothetically, the unfavorable conditions at the site of delivery may select the most fit DCs with high stimulatory potency or simply those at the periphery of the bolus, which are then able to migrate to the LNs and adequately induce immune responses. Combining this information with the current data, we suggest that multiple intradermal injections with small numbers of cells to target multiple LN basins would increase DC migration to LNs, for example, using a "tattoo" delivery device (28). In particular, cells that appear to be actively migratory were only evident with the lower cell numbers (Fig. 4C). ...