Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Towards more translatable research: Exploring alternatives to gavage as the oral administration route of vaccines in rodents for improved animal welfare and human relevance

Lab Animal volume 52, pages 195–197 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Oral vaccines are gaining attention for their ease of administration and ability to activate mucosal immune responses. However, preclinical studies using this route often require the use of gavage, which has limitations. In this comment, we briefly discuss the challenges associated with gavage as a technique for studying oral vaccine administration in preclinical models and explore alternative methods.

Before human clinical trials, oral vaccines undergo preclinical testing to determine their safety and effectiveness in animal models. This is also the case for the oral vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, which is currently in clinical development (NCT04563702). Human oral vaccines, such as the polio vaccine, have already been approved due to their effectiveness, contributing to the ongoing efforts towards disease eradication1. Moreover, the oral route is commonly used in preclinical studies across fields such as cancer research, neurology and chronic treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The prevalence of oral gavage as a method for administering oral vaccines in rodents.
Fig. 2: Comparison of oral administration routes and absorption sites in humans and rodents.

References

  1. Konopka-Anstadt, J. L. et al. NPJ Vaccines 5, 26 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Teixeira-Santos, L., Albino-Teixeira, A. & Pinho, D. Lab. Anim. 55, 76–80 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gao, Y., Gesenberg, C. & Zheng, W. Academic Press pp. 455–495 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-802447-8.00017-0

  4. Scarborough, J. et al. Brain Behav. Immun. 88, 461–470 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Poller, W. C. et al. Nature 607, 578–584 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Arantes-Rodrigues, R. et al. Lab Anim. 41, 129–134 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vandenberg, L. N. et al. Environ. Health 13, 46 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Trincado, V., Gala, R. P. & Morales, J. O. Vaccines 9, 1177 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mao, J. et al. Life 12, 975 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kristensen, M. N., Rades, T., Boisen, A. & Müllertz, A. Int. J. Pharm. 618, 121630 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schleimer, S. B., Johnston, G. A. R. & Henderson, J. M. J. Neurosci. Methods 146, 159–164 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schalbetter, S. M. et al. Lab Anim. 50, 69–75 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chamorro, B. M. et al. Vaccines 11, 982 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker, M. K. et al. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 260, 65–69 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzales, C. et al. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 126, 28–35 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Derbise, A. et al. Infect. Immun. 88, e00810–19 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRI – Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie, Team GIMAP (Saint-Etienne), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Inserm U1111, CNRS, UMR5308, ENS Lyon, UJM, Lyon, France

    Beatriz Miguelena Chamorro & Stéphane Paul

  2. Boehringer Ingelheim, Global Innovation, Saint Priest, France

    Beatriz Miguelena Chamorro, Gokul Swaminathan & Egbert Mundt

  3. CIC Inserm 1408 Vaccinology, Saint-Etienne, France

    Stéphane Paul

Authors
  1. Beatriz Miguelena Chamorro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gokul Swaminathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Egbert Mundt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphane Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphane Paul.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Peer review

Peer review information

Lab Animal thanks Javier O. Morales and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miguelena Chamorro, B., Swaminathan, G., Mundt, E. et al. Towards more translatable research: Exploring alternatives to gavage as the oral administration route of vaccines in rodents for improved animal welfare and human relevance. Lab Anim 52, 195–197 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-023-01232-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-023-01232-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing