Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19446590›Full record

ArticleVaccine2009

Protection against an intranasal challenge by vaccines formulated with native and recombinant preparations of the Chlamydia trachomatis major outer membrane protein.

Guifeng Sun, Sukumar Pal, Joseph Weiland, Ellena M Peterson, Luis M de la Maza

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Structural Assessment ofVaccines · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Guifeng SunDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical Sciences, Room D440, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-4800, United States.
Sukumar Pal
Joseph Weiland
Ellena M Peterson
Luis M de la Maza

Funding

IMMUNOPATHOLOGY OF TUBAL INFERTILITYR01AI032248 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DE LA MAZA, LUIS M · 1993 to 2007
$2.6M
Recombinant C. trachomatis vaccineR01AI067888 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DE LA MAZA, LUIS M · 2007 to 2011
$1.9M
NIAID NIH HHS AI-032248NIAID NIH HHS AI-067888NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI032248NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI067888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the ability of a native and a recombinant preparation of the major outer membrane protein of Chlamydia trachomatis mouse pneumonitis (MoPn; Ct-nMOMP and Ct-rMOMP) to protect against an intranasal (i.n.) challenge, BALB/c mice were vaccinated by the intramuscular (i.m.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) routes using CpG-1826 and Montanide ISA 720 as adjuvants. Animals inoculated i.n. with live elementary bodies (EB) of Chlamydia served as a positive control. Negative control groups were immunized with either Neisseria gonorrhoeae recombinant porin B (Ng-rPorB) or with minimal essential medium (MEM-0). Mice immunized with Ct-rMOMP, Ct-nMOMP and EB developed a strong immune response as shown by high levels of Chlamydia specific antibodies in serum and a strong T-cell lymphoproliferative response. Following the i.n. challenge with 10(4) inclusion forming units (IFU) of C. trachomatis, mice immunized with Ct-nMOMP or Ct-rMOMP lost significantly less weight than the negative control animals immunized with Ng-rPorB or MEM-0 (P<0.05). However, mice vaccinated with the Ct-nMOMP lost less weight than those immunized with the Ct-rMOMP (P<0.05). Mice were euthanized at 10 days following the challenge, their lungs weighed and the number of IFU of Chlamydia determined. Based on the lung weight and number of IFU recovered, significant protection was observed in the groups of mice immunized with both Ct-nMOMP and the Ct-rMOMP (P<0.05). Nevertheless, significantly better protection was achieved with the Ct-nMOMP in comparison with the Ct-rMOMP (P<0.05). In conclusion, vaccination with a preparation of the nMOMP elicited a more robust protection than immunization with rMOMP, suggesting that the conformational structure of MOMP is critical for inducing strong protection.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesBody WeightCell ProliferationChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisColony Count, MicrobialDNAInjections, IntramuscularInjections, SubcutaneousLungMannitolMiceMice, Inbred BALB CAdjuvants, ImmunologicAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesCpG ODN 1826DNAmannide monooleateMannitolOleic AcidsOligodeoxyribonucleotidesomp1 protein, Chlamydia trachomatisPorinsVaccines, SubunitVaccines, Synthetic

Identifiers

PMID19446590
PMCPMC2741729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.