RATIONALE: Previously we have shown that subcutaneous administration of an IL-13 peptide-based vaccine, developed in our laboratory, significantly suppresses murine airway allergic inflammation. Now, we sought to assess whether mucosal immunization with the IL-13 vaccine is better than subcutaneous immunization and its underlying mechanisms.METHODS: An IL-13 vaccine employing Hepatitis B core antigen as a carrier with an insert of the selected IL-13 peptide was constructed using gene engineering method and expressed as a fusion protein. BALB/c mice (8/group) were immunized intranasally three times with the vaccine, vaccine carrier, or phosphate-buffered-saline. Another group of mice was immunized subcutaneously with the vaccine. Following immunization, mice were sensitized twice intraperitoneally and challenged once intranasally with ovalbumin. Methacholine-induced airway hyperresponsiveness was measured 2 days and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF) were collected 5 days after intranasal challenge. IL-13 specific-IgA in BALF and -IgG in serum were assayed using ELISA. Differential cell counts of inflammatory cells in BALF were performed.RESULTS: Mice immunized intranasally, not subcutaneously, with vaccine produced significantly higher levels of IL-13 specific-IgA in BALF. Intranasal immunization also produced stronger serum IL-13 specific-IgG responses than subcutaneous immunization. BALF eosinophil percentages and airway hyperresponsiveness were also significantly reduced in mice receiving intranasal administration of vaccine, when compared to mice receiving carrier intranasally, or receiving vaccine subcutaneously as well as receiving saline.CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal administration of IL-13 vaccine is more effective in suppressing airway allergic responses than subcutaneous immunization, which may provide a potential therapeutic approach in asthma. RATIONALE: Previously we have shown that subcutaneous administration of an IL-13 peptide-based vaccine, developed in our laboratory, significantly suppresses murine airway allergic inflammation. Now, we sought to assess whether mucosal immunization with the IL-13 vaccine is better than subcutaneous immunization and its underlying mechanisms. METHODS: An IL-13 vaccine employing Hepatitis B core antigen as a carrier with an insert of the selected IL-13 peptide was constructed using gene engineering method and expressed as a fusion protein. BALB/c mice (8/group) were immunized intranasally three times with the vaccine, vaccine carrier, or phosphate-buffered-saline. Another group of mice was immunized subcutaneously with the vaccine. Following immunization, mice were sensitized twice intraperitoneally and challenged once intranasally with ovalbumin. Methacholine-induced airway hyperresponsiveness was measured 2 days and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF) were collected 5 days after intranasal challenge. IL-13 specific-IgA in BALF and -IgG in serum were assayed using ELISA. Differential cell counts of inflammatory cells in BALF were performed. RESULTS: Mice immunized intranasally, not subcutaneously, with vaccine produced significantly higher levels of IL-13 specific-IgA in BALF. Intranasal immunization also produced stronger serum IL-13 specific-IgG responses than subcutaneous immunization. BALF eosinophil percentages and airway hyperresponsiveness were also significantly reduced in mice receiving intranasal administration of vaccine, when compared to mice receiving carrier intranasally, or receiving vaccine subcutaneously as well as receiving saline. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal administration of IL-13 vaccine is more effective in suppressing airway allergic responses than subcutaneous immunization, which may provide a potential therapeutic approach in asthma.