ArticleVaccine2010
Novel Chlamydia pneumoniae vaccine candidates confirmed by Th1-enhanced genetic immunization.
Article in Vaccine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seventy Years ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of highly immunogenic antigens is critical for the construction of an efficacious subunit vaccine against Chlamydia pneumoniae infections. A previous project used a genome-wide screen to identify 12 protective C. pneumoniae candidate genes in an A/J mouse lung disease model (Li et al. [14]). Due to insufficient induction of Th1 immunity, these genes elicited only modest protection. Here, we used the Escherichia coli heat-labile enterotoxin as a Th1-enhancing genetic adjuvant, and re-tested these 12 genes, in parallel with six genes identified by other investigators. Vaccine candidate genes cutE and Cpn0420 conferred significant protection by all criteria evaluated (prevention of C. pneumoniae-induced death, reduction of lung disease, elimination of C. pneumoniae). Gene oppA_2 was protective by disease reduction and C. pneumoniae elimination. Four other genes were protective by a single criterion. None of the six genes reported elsewhere protected by reduction of lung disease or elimination of C. pneumoniae, but three protected by increasing survival.
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.