Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18981249›Full record

ArticleInfection and immunity2009

Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of "Mycobacterium w" against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in mice immunized with live versus heat-killed M. w by the aerosol or parenteral route.

Ankan Gupta, Nishamol Geetha, Jiju Mani, Pramod Upadhyay, V M Katoch, M Natrajan, U D Gupta, Sangeeta Bhaskar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and immunity, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in immunology · 2019
    Article
  8. Insights From the Genome Sequence ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ankan GuptaNational Institute of Immunology, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi 110067, India.
Nishamol Geetha
Jiju Mani
Pramod Upadhyay
V M Katoch
M Natrajan
U D Gupta
Sangeeta Bhaskar
National Institute of Immunology · INNational JALMA Institute for Leprosy & Other Mycobacterial Diseases · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis continues to be a burden, there is a concerted effort to find new vaccines to combat this problem. One of the important vaccine strategies is whole bacterial vaccines. This approach relies on multiple antigens and built-in adjuvanticity. Other mycobacterial strains which share cross-reactive antigens with M. tuberculosis have been considered as alternatives to M. bovis for vaccine use. One such strain, "Mycobacterium w", had been evaluated for its immunomodulatory properties in leprosy. A vaccine against leprosy based on killed M. w is approved for human use, where it has resulted in clinical improvement, accelerated bacterial clearance, and increased immune responses to Mycobacterium leprae antigens. M. w shares antigens not only with M. leprae but also with M. tuberculosis, and initial studies have shown that vaccination with killed M. w induces protection against tuberculosis in Mycobacterium bovis BCG responder, as well as BCG nonresponder, strains of mice. Hence, we further studied the protective potential of M. w and the underlying immune responses in the mouse model of tuberculosis. We analyzed the protective efficacy of M. w immunization in both live and killed forms through the parenteral route and by aerosol immunization, compared with that of BCG. Our findings provide evidence that M. w has potential protective efficacy against M. tuberculosis. M. w activates macrophage activity, as well as lymphocytes. M. w immunization by both the parenteral route and aerosol administration gives higher protection than BCG given by the parenteral route in the mouse model of tuberculosis.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesBCG VaccineBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCell ProliferationCytokinesImmunoglobulin AInjections, SubcutaneousLymphocytesMacrophagesMacrophages, AlveolarMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMycobacterium tuberculosisAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesBCG VaccineCytokinesImmunoglobulin AMycobacterium w vaccineVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, Inactivated

Identifiers

PMID18981249
PMCPMC2612247
OpenAlexW2137997182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.