ArticleInfection and immunity2004
Reinfection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum in BALB/c mice and cross-protection between two sympatric isolates.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential Susceptibility of Male Versus Female Laboratory Mice toTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2018Article
- Article
- Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in a domestic cat in Finland: Case report.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2010Article
- Reservoir competency of goats for the Ap-variant 1 strain of Anaplasma phagocytophilum.Infection and immunity · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum in white-footed mice results in partial protection against reinfection with the same agent. However, humans and domestic animals may be sequentially exposed to different isolates of the agent circulating in the same or adjacent foci. We investigated whether immune response to a tick-borne infection with A. phagocytophilum provides protection against homologous and heterologous challenges. BALB/c mice were infected with one of the two sympatric isolates of A. phagocytophilum via tick bite and challenged 16 weeks later by Ixodes scapularis nymphs infected with either the same or the alternative isolate. As controls, groups of infected mice were challenged by uninfected ticks to confirm an absence of reactivation of the original infection or groups of naive mice were fed upon by ticks from cohorts used for an infectious challenge. Xenodiagnostic I. scapularis larvae were fed upon each mouse at 14 and 21 days postchallenge (PCH) and tested for the presence of A. phagocytophilum as freshly molted nymphs. Blood samples for quantitative PCR were collected at 7, 14, 21, and 70 days PCH. Serum samples were collected weekly to monitor development of immune response. The proportion of infected animals, levels of bacteremia, and the prevalence of infection in xenodiagnostic ticks were higher in groups of control mice exposed to A. phagocytophilum for the first time than in mice reinfected with either homologous or heterologous isolates. The presence of antibodies against A. phagocytophilum did not protect mice from a challenge with either homologous or heterologous isolates, however the ensuing reinfection was significantly milder and of a shorter duration than the first infection with either isolate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.