# Comparison of Immune Cell Transfection by Different Vaccine Vectors After Intradermal Injection

## TL;DR

This study compares how well different vaccine vectors can modify immune cells in mice when injected into the skin, finding that mRNA and adenovirus vectors work best.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of immune cell transfection efficiency among mRNA-LNP, DNA-based, and adenovirus vectors after intradermal injection.

## Key findings

- Adenovirus vectors showed the highest luciferase and GFP activation in skin and lymph nodes.
- mRNA-LNP and Ad vectors significantly modified multiple immune cell types, while naked DNA and DNA-LNP were less effective.
- Both mRNA-LNP and Ad vectors caused off-target modification in the liver.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Antigen presenting cells (APCs) and immune cells have unique properties to drive or suppress immune responses. They are therefore key targets for the expression of vaccine antigens or transgene proteins. To better determine the utility of different molecular therapies to modify these cells, mRNA and DNA-based molecular therapy vectors were compared for their ability to genetically modify immune cells after intradermal injections in mice. DNA-based vectors included naked plasmid DNA, plasmid packaged in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), and replication-defective adenovirus (Ad) vectors. mRNA delivery was mediated by packaging into LNPs like those used in COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Each vector was used to deliver Cre recombinase into Cre reporter mice whose cells were activated to express green fluorescent protein (GFP) and firefly luciferase after Cre recombination. The mice were injected intradermally (ID) near the base of their tail at a site that drains into the inguinal lymph node. Luciferase activity was imaged in the living mice 1 or 4 days after vector injection. The animals were then euthanized, and luciferase activity was imaged in the draining inguinal lymph node. Cells were prepared from the intradermal injection site and from the draining lymph node to determine which immune cells were genetically modified by phenotyping CD45, CD3, and CD11b GFP-positive cells by flow cytometry. Given that the skin uniquely contains Langerhans dendritic cells, these CD207+ cells were also phenotyped in skin samples and in the draining lymph node. Results: In both the skin and in the draining lymph node, the rank order of luciferase and GFP activation by the vectors were: (1) Ad; (2) mRNA-LNP; (3) DNA-LNP; and (4) naked DNA. Only mRNA-LNP and Ad vectors mediated obvious luciferase activity in the living animals and in the draining lymph nodes by imaging. Notably, both vectors appeared to leak from the ID injection site and not only modify the draining lymph node but also strongly modify the livers of the mice. Naked DNA and DNA-LNP mediated detectable GFP activation in the skin and draining lymph node in some mice, but this activity was low and did not reach statistical significance when compared to PBS-treated animals. mRNA-LNPs and Ad both mediated significant Cre delivery in CD45+, CD3+, CD11b+, and CD207+ immune cells in the skin and in the lymph node, with adenovirus mediating consistently higher levels of expression in all of the tested cells. Conclusions: These data indicate that mRNA-LNP and Ad vectors mediate stronger modification of skin and lymph node immune cells after intradermal injections. Naked DNA and DNA-LNPs were markedly less potent at this activity than the other vectors. These data are consistent with the higher vaccine potency of mRNA-LNP and Ad vectors and suggest that approaches that increase targeting of immune cell subsets may have utility to increase efficacy while also reducing off-target modification of tissues like the liver.