Not that Merck (Nventa, et al) might not already be in the loop on this. But maybe not.
DNA-vaccination via tattooing reportedly induces stronger humoral and cellular immune responses than intramuscular delivery supported by molecular adjuvants.
Ed. note: RRP ISA has obtained some feedback critical of the this study. We have not been authorized to offer attribution, but this is one bit of feedback we have received:
"This article (especially the “news release” from eurekalert) is very misleading. The actual comparison was DNA vaccine by tattoo to DNA vaccine intramuscularly. The tattoo was perhaps 4x to maybe 8x better. But the overall immunogenic response is – I believe – very much worse than IM inoculation/vaccination with the VLPs (Gardasil or Cervarix). Overall DNA vaccination is typically far less robust than protein antigens. The DNA first needs to get translated into proteins. Whether they can assemble into capsomers or further on to VLPs, I do not know, but I doubt it. . . .Virion assembly. . . is much more complicated than just expressing proteins (especially when in the wrong cell type). I cannot speak to the durability of response but would guess that it is far shorter than with conventional vaccination. In any case, I would defer to experts in vaccinations for their interpretation. With this study, I am very skeptical."