Nanoparticle-based immunopotentiation via tetanus toxoid-loaded gelatin and aminated gelatin nanoparticles
Authors: S P Vyas
D V Kohli
M S Sudheesh
Journal: Drug delivery (2011)
Discipline: PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
Keywords: Gelatin nanoparticles; aminated gelatin nanoparticles; tetanus toxoid; adjuvant; delivery
Affiliations: Biopharmaceuticals Research Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dr H. S. Gour, University, Sagar, M. P., India.

Abstract:  Gelatin nanoparticles (GNPs) and aminated gelatin nanoparticles (AGNPs) were prepared and used as an adjuvant to improve the delivery of tetanus toxoid (TT). Nanoparticles were characterized in vitro for their size, shape, entrapment, and release. TT-FITC conjugate was used to determine entrapment and release from nanoparticles. The immune-stimulating activity was studied by measuring anti-TT IgG, IgG1, and IgG2a isotype and cytokine responses following subcutaneous (s.c) injection of nanoparticles in BALB/c mice and was compared with alum-TT vaccine. Gelatin and aminated gelatin (AG) specific IgG response was also determined. Both GNPs and AGNPs demonstrated comparable IgG response and a significantly higher (p &lt; 0.05) cytokine response (IL-2 and IFN γ) as compared to alum-TT vaccine. Nanoparticulate formulations elicited both Th1 and Th2 responses and induced negligible undesirable immunogenicity against the carrier, as demonstrated by lower level of gelatin and AG-specific IgG response as compared to control. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 1.  SEM image showing spherical morphology of TT loaded AGNPs. ![file] Figure 1 from [Rai et al (2016)] .  Scanning electron photomicrographs of crosslinked dextran microspheres. ![file] How to explain the common elements, while also explaining the differences? There are no authors in common between the two papers, although the institution is the same. , 
 #1 ![file] , 
 Why should we explain this to youuff1f , 
 #3 People are curious whether you used Photoshop or CGI. , 
 #3 Dr. Vyas: You are, of course, free not to respond to questions about your research from anonymous persons. However, you may find that many peers will see your acknowledgment of these concerns and then your lack of response as a confirmation that the concerns expressed have merit. Update: Iu2019m afraid I was unaware of the numerous other papers with similar concerns posted on PubPeer. I doubt a detailed response to this thread will affect things one way or another. , 
 We wrote the paper. If there is a mistake, we can choose to correct it or not. We don t think pubpeer is the right place to respond to anoymous people. , 
 #6 Dr. Vyas, allow me then to ask you to respond as a non-anonymous person and fellow pharmaceutical scientist. So, please, can you find out why the paper from your colleagues uses a SEM figure that is so similar and yet at the same time so distinct from the one in your paper? The strong similarities suggest the same photograph was used, while the differences suggests one or the other was subsequently manipulated - that is, I cannot see how this could be  a mistake like accidentally copying a photograph from someone else. I can only hope there is a more innocuous explanation, and thus I would like to request you to investigate this. , 
 #2 A do-over. ![file] ,