A combination of intradermal jet-injection and electroporation overcomes in vivodose restriction of DNA vaccines
The use of optimized delivery devices has been shown to enhance the potency of DNA vaccines. However, further optimization of DNA vaccine delivery is needed for this vaccine modality to ultimately be efficacious in humans.
Herein we evaluated antigen expression and immunogenicity after intradermal delivery of different doses of DNA vaccines by needle or by the Biojector jet-injection device, with or without the addition of electroporation (EP).
Neither needle injection augmented by EP nor Biojector alone could induce higher magnitudes of immune responses after immunizations with a high dose of DNA. After division of a defined DNA dose into multiple skin sites, the humoral response was particularly enhanced by Biojector while cellular responses were particularly enhanced by EP. Furthermore, a close correlation between in vivo antigen expression and cell-mediated as well as humoral immune responses was observed.
These results show that two optimized DNA vaccine delivery devices can act together to overcome dose restrictions of plasmid DNA vaccines.
KeywordsDNA vaccine Electroporation Jet-injection Biojector
Plasmid-based DNA vaccines are commonly used in vaccine research to induce immune responses against infectious agents or tumor antigens. These vaccines possess advantages including rapid construction and high stability, as well as the capacity to induce cellular immune responses owing to the intracellular production of the encoded antigen . Still, further optimization of DNA vaccine delivery is needed for this vaccine modality to ultimately be efficacious in humans [2, 3].
One strategy to influence the immune responses to DNA vaccines is by the choice of immunization route. We have chosen to employ intradermal (id) immunizations as the skin, unlike muscle tissue, has a large population of resident antigen presenting cells (APCs) that can facilitate the induction of vaccine-specific immune responses [4, 5]. The skin is also a more accessible tissue than muscle, allowing for less painful DNA vaccine delivery and facilitating studies of in vivo protein expression. In addition to conventional needle immunization, several injection devices including Biojector and in vivo electroporation (EP) are being used to improve DNA delivery to the skin. Biojector is a CO2-propelled needle-free device that injects DNA plasmids as a highly focused liquid stream into the skin. This has been shown to enhance antigen expression as compared to conventional needle injection , most probably due to the large area and thus larger number of cells being targeted by injection with Biojector. DNA vaccine delivery by Biojector has been shown to induce strong immune responses in preclinical and clinical trials [6–11].
Another commonly used strategy employed to augment DNA vaccine delivery is EP. EP enhances transfection efficacy by the transient formation of pores in the cell membrane, allowing for an increased uptake of plasmids into the cell. Additionally, the electric pulses result in an influx of APCs to the site of injection [12, 13], further augmenting the immunogenicity of the gene product. Thus, EP can significantly enhance expression [13, 14] and immunogenicity [15–18] of plasmid-encoded antigens.
In this study we evaluated the capacity of different id DNA immunization strategies to induce immune responses in mice. DNA was delivered by needle or Biojector, with or without the addition of EP. Luciferase- and HIV-1 Gag-encoding plasmids of various concentrations were used in order to determine the impact of DNA dose on in vivo expression and immunogenicity in mice, respectively. To avoid dose limitations by volume restrictions when delivering DNA vaccines id, we used plasmid preparations of up to 10 μg/μl. The study showed that a high dose of DNA injected by Biojector alone (1000 μg) or needle plus EP (100 μg) induced similar levels of immune responses as a considerably lower dose of DNA (10 μg) administered in the same manner. Interestingly, when we combined Biojector-injection with EP, this dose plateau could be circumvented as evidenced by the significantly stronger immune responses that were induced after immunization with the high dose DNA as compared to the lower dose. Furthermore, a close correlation between the level of in vivo antigen expression and frequency of cell-mediated immune responses, and between reduction in in vivo antigen expression and magnitude of CD8+ T cell responses, were observed. These data suggest that a combination of Biojector and EP could overcome dose restrictions observed also for other DNA encoded antigens.
Vaccine formulation and immunizations
pKCMVp37B [10, 36], pVax-Luc  and empty pKCMV were used for immunizations. Plasmids were amplified in E. Coli and purified using endotoxin-free GigaPrep (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and PlasmidSelect (GE Healthcare) kit. The eluted and precipitated DNA was dissolved in saline at 4°C overnight to obtain DNA of 10 μg/μl. Gel-clot tests for detecting endotoxins in DNA preparations were performed at APL Pharma Specials (Stockholm, Sweden).
Female BALB/c mice (Charles River Laboratories, Sülzfeld, Germany), 5–8 weeks old, were held at the Astrid Fagraeus Laboratory (Ethical approval Dnr: N210/07). Mice were immunized once or twice (week 0 and 4) id on the back of the mouse. Doses of 10–1000 μg DNA were injected with a 29 gauge Micro-Fine™ needle (BD, NJ, USA) or by Biojector  (Bioject Medical Technologies, OR, USA) with dermal spacer, with 10 and 100 μl DNA solutions diluted in saline, respectively. The Biojector was adjusted for delivery to mice (3400 PSI). Immunizations with needle and Biojector were either given alone or followed by EP using the Derma Vax™ EP device (Cellectis, Romainville, France) as previously described . Briefly, the needle electrodes (2 mm) were inserted in the shaved mouse skin to cover the injection site and two pulses of 1125 V/cm (50 μs duration) plus eight pulses of 275 V/cm (10 ms duration) were applied.
Cellular immune responses
Mice were sacrificed two weeks after the last immunization or, for the in vivo imaging study, 25 days after a single immunization, and spleens and serum were collected. Splenocytes were purified by Ficoll-Paque separation (GE Healthcare, Stockholm, Sweden) and IFN-γ ELISpot and IFN-γ/IL-2 FluoroSpot assays (Mabtech, Nacka Strand, Sweden) were performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol and as previously described . 1 × 105 viable cells were plated per well and stimulated with a peptide pool covering Gag p24B (15mers with ten amino acids overlap) or the H2-Kd restricted AMQMLKETI (Gag) and GFQSMYTFV (luciferase)  peptides. The final concentration of peptides was 5 μg/peptide/ml.
Binding antibody titers were assessed with ELISA as previously described . Plates were coated with 100 μl/well of 1 μg/ml recombinant Gag p17/p24B (NIBSC/CFAR, Potters Bar, UK) or recombinant luciferase (Promega, WI, USA).
Subsequent to DNA injections, mice were injected intraperitoneally (ip) with luciferin potassium salt (Caliper Life Sciences, MA, USA) and luciferase expression was assessed by using the IVIS200 apparatus (Xenogen, CA, USA) as previously described . In the present study, in vivo expression was assessed ten minutes after ip injection with luciferin and injections with different doses of pVax-Luc and pKCMVp37B were compared with the corresponding dose of empty pKCMV plasmid.
Statistical analysis was performed using the GraphPad Prism 4 software (GraphPad Software, CA, USA). A two-tailed Mann–Whitney test and a Spearman rank test were used to analyze differences between two groups and correlation between in vivo expression and immunogenicity.
Results and discussion
High and low plasmid dose administered by Biojector or needle followed by EP induce similar levels of immune responses
The first study was designed to compare id vaccine delivery by Biojector with id needle injections augmented by EP, and evaluate whether a high dose vaccine plasmid (1000 μg for Biojector and 100 μg for needle plus EP), delivered either as single or multiple injections, could induce stronger immune responses than a considerably lower dose (10 μg). Hence, BALB/c mice were immunized twice with different doses and volumes of a HIV-1 Gag-encoding plasmid (pKCMVp37B) [10, 36], either by Biojector or with needle followed by EP.
In terms of DNA dose, both Biojector and needle plus EP immunized mice mounted similar magnitudes of immune responses after immunization with the high (1000 μg for Biojector and 100 μg for needle plus EP) and the low (10 μg) dose (Figure 1). These results suggest that a dose plateau was reached prior to or at the low dose, that prevented further amplification of immune responses, despite the use of two powerful DNA delivery devices. No endotoxins were detected in neither of the DNA preparations. Hence, we could exclude that traces of endotoxins in the highly concentrated DNA preparations (10 μg/μl) accounted for the limited immune response that was induced in mice immunized with the high dose DNA.
The limited cellular and humoral immune responses induced by a high dose of DNA in both Biojector and needle plus EP immunized mice appeared somewhat elevated (p > 0.05) when the total amount of DNA was divided and delivered as five injections on different injection sites (5 × 200 μg for Biojector and 5 × 20 μg for needle plus EP). Mice immunized with Biojector even displayed significantly improved binding antibody titers (p < 0.05). The superiority of multiple-site immunizations has previously been observed after im needle immunizations , and after id needle plus EP immunizations . Here we demonstrate that this phenomenon applies also for antibody responses after plasmid vaccine delivery with Biojector.
The addition of EP enhances immune responses of needle and Biojector immunizations
As neither delivery by Biojector nor needle plus EP could circumvent the observed dose plateau and elicit stronger immune responses after immunizations with a high dose of DNA as compared to a low dose, the combined effect of Biojector and EP was studied. BALB/c mice were immunized twice with 10 μg pKCMVp37B by needle (10 μg in 10 μl) or Biojector (10 μg in 100 μl), with or without the addition of EP.
Injections with high DNA doses by a combination of Biojector and EP induce luciferase-specific cell-mediated immune responses
To further evaluate the combined effect of Biojector and EP, we studied in vivo protein expression after Biojector plus EP injections. BALB/c mice were immunized once with doses ranging from 10 to 1000 μg of a luciferase-encoding plasmid (pVax-Luc)  or empty vector (pKCMV). Subsequent luciferase expression in vivo was measured using the Xenogen In Vivo Imaging System (IVIS), which allows for a direct quantification of luciferase expression visualized as luminescent pixels after cleavage of an ip injected luciferin substrate. Expression was measured at 4, 8, 11, 18 and 25 days post injection and immune responses were assessed by ELISA and IFN-γ/interleukin-2 (IL-2) FluoroSpot  at day 25.
Immunizations with a combination of Biojector and EP overcome dose restrictions to plasmid-encoded Gag
We next examined how the Biojector plus EP immunization strategy with different doses applied for the Gag-encoding DNA that was used in the two initial experiments. BALB/c mice were immunized once with doses ranging from 10 to 1000 μg of pKCMVp37B or empty vector (pKCMV), both mixed with 25 μg pVax-Luc to examine the in vivo immunogenicity measured as the clearance of pKCMVp37B and pVax-Luc transfected cells. The 25 μg pVax-Luc dose was chosen as it does not induce luciferase-specific immune responses (Figures 3A and B).
Similar to the two initial studies with pKCMVp37B, the Gag p24B peptide pool and the H2-Kd restricted AMQMLKETI peptide stimulated comparable levels of cellular immune responses in the ELISpot and FluoroSpot assays (p < 0.05 for all groups) (data not shown), demonstrating that the induced cell-mediated immune responses, including those responsible for the clearance of Gag-expressing cells, are mainly of CD8+ T cell nature. With respect to antibody responses, the titers of Gag-specific binding antibodies were enhanced as the dose of Gag-encoding plasmid was increased, and the mice receiving the highest dose elicited significantly higher antibody titers than mice immunized with the lowest dose (p = 0.03) (Figure 4D).
Biojector plus EP immunizations have previously been studied in pigs . That study showed that a combination of Biojector and EP lead to a more rapid induction of antibody responses as compared to needle plus EP delivery. However, there was no difference in the magnitude of antibody titers. Here we demonstrate that the combination of Biojector and EP can overcome the observed dose restriction of a Gag-encoding plasmid and enhance immune responses when the DNA vaccine dose is increased. This is most probably a consequence of enhanced transfection efficacy of id delivery, in part by targeting a large number of cells with Biojector, and in part by improved cellular uptake when adding EP. We assume that the observed antigen expression and subsequent immune response indeed are located in the dermal layer of the skin and not in underlying muscle since we use a Biojector device that is adjusted for id delivery to mice. Moreover, we have previously shown that approximately 1000-fold less DNA is located in the underlying muscle as compared to the injected skin after Biojector plus EP immunizations in mice .
In summary, the present findings demonstrate that the combination of Biojector and EP can overcome the observed dose restriction of a DNA vaccine and enhance immune responses when the dose is increased. Furthermore, we show that levels of antigen expression correlate with the frequency of IFN-γ and IL-2 secretion, and that the clearance of antigen expression correlates with the magnitude of IFN-γ responses to CD8+ T cell epitopes. Although the high concentration and thus high doses of DNA used in this study are too high to translate directly into human settings, these comparisons show that these two modes of optimized DNA vaccine delivery can act together to overcome dose restriction of a plasmid DNA vaccine.
- Brave A, Boberg A, Gudmundsdotter L, Rollman E, Hallermalm K, Ljungberg K, Blomberg P, Stout R, Paulie S, Sandstrom E, et al: A new multi-clade DNA prime/recombinant MVA boost vaccine induces broad and high levels of HIV-1-specific CD8(+) T-cell and humoral responses in mice. Mol Ther. 2007, 15: 1724-1733. 10.1038/sj.mt.6300235.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brave A, Ljungberg K, Boberg A, Rollman E, Isaguliants M, Lundgren B, Blomberg P, Hinkula J, Wahren B: Multigene/multisubtype HIV-1 vaccine induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses by needle-free intradermal delivery. Mol Ther. 2005, 12: 1197-1205. 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.06.473.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sandstrom E, Nilsson C, Hejdeman B, Brave A, Bratt G, Robb M, Cox J, Vancott T, Marovich M, Stout R, et al: Broad immunogenicity of a multigene, multiclade HIV-1 DNA vaccine boosted with heterologous HIV-1 recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara. J Infect Dis. 2008, 198: 1482-1490. 10.1086/592507.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu J, Kjeken R, Mathiesen I, Barouch DH: Recruitment of antigen-presenting cells to the site of inoculation and augmentation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 DNA vaccine immunogenicity by in vivo electroporation. J Virol. 2008, 82: 5643-5649. 10.1128/JVI.02564-07.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roos AK, Eriksson F, Timmons JA, Gerhardt J, Nyman U, Gudmundsdotter L, Brave A, Wahren B, Pisa P: Skin electroporation: effects on transgene expression, DNA persistence and local tissue environment. PLoS One. 2009, 4: e7226-10.1371/journal.pone.0007226.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gothelf A, Eriksen J, Hojman P, Gehl J: Duration and level of transgene expression after gene electrotransfer to skin in mice. Gene Ther. 2010, 17: 839-845. 10.1038/gt.2010.35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hirao LA, Wu L, Khan AS, Hokey DA, Yan J, Dai A, Betts MR, Draghia-Akli R, Weiner DB: Combined effects of IL-12 and electroporation enhances the potency of DNA vaccination in macaques. Vaccine. 2008, 26: 3112-3120. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.02.036.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Low L, Mander A, McCann K, Dearnaley D, Tjelle T, Mathiesen I, Stevenson F, Ottensmeier CH: DNA vaccination with electroporation induces increased antibody responses in patients with prostate cancer. Hum Gene Ther. 2009, 20: 1269-1278. 10.1089/hum.2009.067.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tsang C, Babiuk S, van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk S, Babiuk LA, Griebel P: A single DNA immunization in combination with electroporation prolongs the primary immune response and maintains immune memory for six months. Vaccine. 2007, 25: 5485-5494. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.03.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vasan S, Hurley A, Schlesinger SJ, Hannaman D, Gardiner DF, Dugin DP, Boente-Carrera M, Vittorino R, Caskey M, Andersen J, et al: In Vivo Electroporation Enhances the Immunogenicity of an HIV-1 DNA Vaccine Candidate in Healthy Volunteers. PLoS One. 2011, 6: e19252-10.1371/journal.pone.0019252.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sin JI, Hong SH, Park YJ, Park JB, Choi YS, Kim MS: Antitumor therapeutic effects of e7 subunit and DNA vaccines in an animal cervical cancer model: antitumor efficacy of e7 therapeutic vaccines is dependent on tumor sizes, vaccine doses, and vaccine delivery routes. DNA Cell Biol. 2006, 25: 277-286. 10.1089/dna.2006.25.277.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu J, Hellerstein M, McDonnel M, Amara RR, Wyatt LS, Moss B, Robinson HL: Dose–response studies for the elicitation of CD8 T cells by a DNA vaccine, used alone or as the prime for a modified vaccinia Ankara boost. Vaccine. 2007, 25: 2951-2958. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.081.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ulmer JB, Deck RR, DeWitt CM, Friedman A, Donnelly JJ, Liu MA: Protective immunity by intramuscular injection of low doses of influenza virus DNA vaccines. Vaccine. 1994, 12: 1541-1544. 10.1016/0264-410X(94)90081-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wolff JA, Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, Felgner PL: Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science. 1990, 247: 1465-1468. 10.1126/science.1690918.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hojman P, Gissel H, Gehl J: Sensitive and precise regulation of haemoglobin after gene transfer of erythropoietin to muscle tissue using electroporation. Gene Ther. 2007, 14: 950-959. 10.1038/sj.gt.3302951.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sarkar N, Blomberg P, Wardell E, Eskandarpour M, Sylven C, Drvota V, Islam KB: Nonsurgical direct delivery of plasmid DNA into rat heart: time course, dose response, and the influence of different promoters on gene expression. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2002, 39: 215-224. 10.1097/00005344-200202000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vandermeulen G, Staes E, Vanderhaeghen ML, Bureau MF, Scherman D, Preat V: Optimisation of intradermal DNA electrotransfer for immunisation. J Control Release. 2007, 124: 81-87. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.08.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Manthorpe M, Cornefert-Jensen F, Hartikka J, Felgner J, Rundell A, Margalith M, Dwarki V: Gene therapy by intramuscular injection of plasmid DNA: studies on firefly luciferase gene expression in mice. Hum Gene Ther. 1993, 4: 419-431. 10.1089/hum.1993.4.4-419.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fu TM, Guan L, Friedman A, Schofield TL, Ulmer JB, Liu MA, Donnelly JJ: Dose dependence of CTL precursor frequency induced by a DNA vaccine and correlation with protective immunity against influenza virus challenge. J Immunol. 1999, 162: 4163-4170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gardiner DF, Huang Y, Basu S, Leung L, Song Y, Chen Z, Ho DD: Multiple-site DNA vaccination enhances immune responses in mice. Vaccine. 2006, 24: 287-292. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.07.075.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Davis HL, Millan CL, Watkins SC: Immune-mediated destruction of transfected muscle fibers after direct gene transfer with antigen-expressing plasmid DNA. Gene Ther. 1997, 4: 181-188. 10.1038/sj.gt.3300380.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frimpong-Boateng K, van Rooijen N, Geiben-Lynn R: Regulatory T cells suppress natural killer cells during plasmid DNA vaccination in mice, blunting the CD8+ T cell immune response by the cytokine TGFbeta. PLoS One. 2010, 5: e12281-10.1371/journal.pone.0012281.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Geiben-Lynn R, Greenland JR, Frimpong-Boateng K, Letvin NL: Non-classical natural killer T cells modulate plasmid DNA vaccine antigen expression and vaccine-elicited immune responses by MCP-1 secretion after interaction with a beta2-microglobulin-independent CD1d. J Biol Chem. 2009, 284: 33800-33806. 10.1074/jbc.M109.019638.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Geiben-Lynn R, Greenland JR, Frimpong-Boateng K, van Rooijen N, Hovav AH, Letvin NL: CD4+ T lymphocytes mediate in vivo clearance of plasmid DNA vaccine antigen expression and potentiate CD8+ T-cell immune responses. Blood. 2008, 112: 4585-4590. 10.1182/blood-2008-06-165803.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Greenland JR, Geiben R, Ghosh S, Pastor WA, Letvin NL: Plasmid DNA vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses limit in vivo vaccine antigen expression through Fas-mediated apoptosis. J Immunol. 2007, 178: 5652-5658.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hirao LA, Wu L, Khan AS, Satishchandran A, Draghia-Akli R, Weiner DB: Intradermal/subcutaneous immunization by electroporation improves plasmid vaccine delivery and potency in pigs and rhesus macaques. Vaccine. 2008, 26: 440-448. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.041.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang XD, Tang JG, Xie XL, Yang JC, Li S, Ji JG, Gu J: A comprehensive study of optimal conditions for naked plasmid DNA transfer into skeletal muscle by electroporation. J Gene Med. 2005, 7: 1235-1245. 10.1002/jgm.765.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz S, Felber BK, Pavlakis GN: Distinct RNA sequences in the gag region of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 decrease RNA stability and inhibit expression in the absence of Rev protein. J Virol. 1992, 66: 150-159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallengard D, Haller BK, Maltais AK, Gelius E, Nihlmark K, Wahren B, Brave A: Comparison of plasmid vaccine immunization schedules using intradermal in vivo electroporation. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011, 9: 1577-1581.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Limberis MP, Bell CL, Wilson JM: Identification of the murine firefly luciferase-specific CD8 T-cell epitopes. Gene Ther. 2009, 16: 441-447. 10.1038/gt.2008.177.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallengard D, Haller BK, Petersson S, Boberg A, Maltais AK, Isaguliants M, Wahren B, Brave A: Increased expression and immunogenicity of HIV-1 protease following inactivation of the enzymatic activity. Vaccine. 2011, 29: 839-848. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.10.083.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rao SS, Gomez P, Mascola JR, Dang V, Krivulka GR, Yu F, Lord CI, Shen L, Bailer R, Nabel GJ, Letvin NL: Comparative evaluation of three different intramuscular delivery methods for DNA immunization in a nonhuman primate animal model. Vaccine. 2006, 24: 367-373. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.07.072.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bloquel C, Trollet C, Pradines E, Seguin J, Scherman D, Bureau MF: Optical imaging of luminescence for in vivo quantification of gene electrotransfer in mouse muscle and knee. BMC Biotechnol. 2006, 6: 16-10.1186/1472-6750-6-16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ahlen G, Derk E, Weiland M, Jiao J, Rahbin N, Aleman S, Peterson DL, Pokrovskaja K, Grander D, Frelin L, Sallberg M: Cleavage of the IPS-1/Cardif/MAVS/VISA does not inhibit T cell-mediated elimination of hepatitis C virus non-structural 3/4A-expressing hepatocytes. Gut. 2009, 58: 560-569. 10.1136/gut.2007.147264.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kuwano K, Arai S: Involvement of two distinct killing mechanisms in bystander target cell lysis induced by a cytotoxic T lymphocyte clone. Cell Immunol. 1996, 169: 288-293. 10.1006/cimm.1996.0120.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brave A, Gudmundsdotter L, Sandstrom E, Haller BK, Hallengard D, Maltais AK, King AD, Stout RR, Blomberg P, Hoglund U, et al: Biodistribution, persistence and lack of integration of a multigene HIV vaccine delivered by needle-free intradermal injection and electroporation. Vaccine. 2010, 28: 8203-8209. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar