You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract  enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines. Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] . The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] . Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] . Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here. There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines. Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains. Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] . One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] . Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] . AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] . There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection.

Question: What is the advantage of virus vectored vaccine?
a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract