The Effects of Physical and Chemical Modulating Agents on the Induction of Vaccine-Induced Immune Responses

After the development of the viral-based prostate cancer vaccine, Ad5-PSA, much research has been orientated to help enhance the induced immune response by combining the vaccine with physical and chemical modulating agents, more specifically the polymers polyethylenimine (PEI), chitosan, and chitosan coated with CD3 complex antibodies; all previously shown to stimulate an immune response as isolated gene carriers. To compare the vaccine-induced immune responses between the naked vaccine and the polymer-vaccine combinations, a mouse model using the ovalbumin- specific Ad-OVA vaccine was tested using intracellular cytokine staining (ICS), tetramer staining, and cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte assays to measure the activation of CD8+ T-cells, interferon gamma proteins (INFƒ×), and the induced cytotoxicity to ovalbumin. The Ad-OVA vaccine combined with both chitosan and chitosan with CD3 complex antibodies, both natural polymers, were found to induce similar immune responses to the naked vaccine while the vaccine combined with the synthetic polymer, PEI, diminished the immune response.

The Effects Of Reinforcement Inclusions On Wear Tolerance, Playing Quality And Physical Properties In A Silt Loam And Sand Rootzone Matrix

Reinforcement inclusions have been advocated to alleviate wear, compaction, and unstable surfaces in sports fields, but little research on the effects of these materials has been conducted in the USA. Experiments were established on a native silt loam and a sand rootzone matrix, seeded with a Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) blend, at the Joseph Troll Turf Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA to determine the effects of reinforcement inclusions on wear, surface hardness, traction, ball roll, ball bounce resilience, water infiltration rate, soil bulk density, air porosity, total porosity, and root weights. Three types of reinforcement inclusions (Sportgrass, Netlon, Turfgrids) were tested along with a non-reinforced control in a three year study. The treatments were set out in a randomized complete block design with four replications in both soils. No inclusion provided less wear or greater infiltration or air-filled porosity relative to the control. Reinforcement inclusions showed significant differences, however, in surface hardness, traction, and ball roll relative to the control, although this varied with the time of year. Infiltration rates, airfilled porosity, total pore space, bulk density, hardness, traction, ball roll, and ball rebound were greater on the sand rootzone than on the silt loam. Significant correlations were present between soil bulk density, surface hardness, traction, and ball roll. Based on our study, the use of reinforcement inclusions to provide better wear tolerance for sand or native soil athletic fields is not warranted. Certain playing surface characteristics, however, may be slightly improved with the use of reinforcement inclusions. The use of sands for sports surfaces is justified based upon the improvement in playing quality characteristics and soil physical properties important to a good playing surface.