ArticleVaccine2010
Enhancement of the protective efficacy of a Chlamydia trachomatis recombinant vaccine by combining systemic and mucosal routes for 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 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural Assessment ofVaccines · 2024Article
- Effects of prime-boost strategies on the protective efficacy and immunogenicity of a PLGA (85:15)-encapsulated Chlamydia recombinant MOMP nanovaccine.Pathogens and disease · 2024Article
- Sublingual Boosting with a Novel Mucoadhesive Thermogelling Hydrogel Following Parenteral CAF01 Priming as a Strategy Against Chlamydia trachomatis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2022Article
- Induction of Protection in Mice against aVaccines · 2021Article
- A Chlamydia trachomatis VD1-MOMP vaccine elicits cross-neutralizing and protective antibodies against C/C-related complex serovars.NPJ vaccines · 2021Article
- Protection against a chlamydial respiratory challenge by a chimeric vaccine formulated with theNPJ vaccines · 2020Article
- Vaccination with the recombinant major outer membrane protein elicits long-term protection in mice against vaginal shedding and infertility following aNPJ vaccines · 2020Article
- Article
- Seventy Years ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
- Simultaneous Intramuscular And Intranasal Administration Of Chitosan Nanoparticles-AdjuvantedInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
- Future of human Chlamydia vaccine: potential of self-adjuvanting biodegradable nanoparticles as safe vaccine delivery vehicles.Expert review of vaccines · 2018Review
- Chlamydial protease-like activity factor mediated protection against C. trachomatis in guinea pigs.Immunology and cell biology · 2017Article
- Update on Chlamydia trachomatis Vaccinology.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2017Review
- Synthetic Nanoparticles for Vaccines and Immunotherapy.Chemical reviews · 2015Review
- Increased immunoaccessibility of MOMP epitopes in a vaccine formulated with amphipols may account for the very robust protection elicited against a vaginal challenge with Chlamydia muridarum.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2014Article
- Genital Chlamydia trachomatis: understanding the roles of innate and adaptive immunity in vaccine research.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2014Review
- Article
- A single sublingual dose of an adenovirus-based vaccine protects against lethal Ebola challenge in mice and guinea pigs.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2012Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis vaccine research through the years.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chlamydia trachomatis causes respiratory and sexually transmitted infections. Here, we tested a vaccine formulated with the recombinant major outer membrane protein from C. trachomatis mouse pneumonitis (CT-MoPn) for its ability to protect mice against an intranasal (i.n.) challenge. The adjuvants CpG and Montanide were used for systemic routes, intramuscular (i.m.) and subcutaneous (s.c.), and cholera toxin for mucosal routes, sublingual (s.l.) and colonic (c.l.). Mucosal immunizations were performed either alone or in combination with systemic routes. Mice inoculated i.n. with 10(4) inclusion-forming units (IFU) of CT-MoPn served as a positive control and the Neisseria gonorrhoeae recombinant porin B (Ng-rPorB) as the negative antigen control. Immunized animals were challenged i.n. with 10(4)IFU of CT-MoPn. Following immunization the combination groups showed high chlamydial serum IgG titers (s.l.+i.m.+s.c. 25,600; c.l+i.m.+s.c. 102,400) and the IgG2a/IgG1 ratios indicated a Th1 response. Following the i.n. challenge the s.l.+i.m.+s.c. group showed the best protection as demonstrated by an increase in body weight of 0.3% over the 10 day course of infection. A statistically significant difference was found when compared with the Ng-rPorB immunized animals that had lost 20% of their original body weight (P<0.05). In addition, the repeated measures ANOVA test showed significant difference in body weight change for the combined immunized groups vs their mucosal counterparts and also the systemic immunized group. A statistically significant difference (P<0.05) was also observed in the number of IFUs recovered from the lungs when the s.l.+i.m.+s.c. (2.8×10(6)) and c.l.+i.m.+s.c. (3.4×10(6)) groups were compared to their respective mucosal only groups (s.l.: 61.9×10(6) and c.l: 136.2×10(6)) and the control Ng-rPorB immunized mice (198.2×10(6)) (P<0.05). In conclusion, a combined systemic plus mucosal vaccination provides better protection against a respiratory challenge with C. trachomatis than either systemic or mucosal immunizations alone.
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.