Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20875490›Full record

ArticleVaccine2010

Enhancement of the protective efficacy of a Chlamydia trachomatis recombinant vaccine by combining systemic and mucosal routes for immunization.

Pooja Ralli-Jain, Delia Tifrea, Chunmei Cheng, Sukumar Pal, Luis M de la Maza

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Structural Assessment ofVaccines · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Seventy Years ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Update on Chlamydia trachomatis Vaccinology.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2017
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Chlamydia trachomatis vaccine research through the years.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2011
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pooja Ralli-JainDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical Sciences, Room D440, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-4800, USA.
Delia Tifrea
Chunmei Cheng
Sukumar Pal
Luis M de la Maza
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

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

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

Administration, SublingualAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialAntibody FormationBacterial VaccinesBody WeightCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisFemaleImmunity, MucosalImmunoglobulin GInjections, IntramuscularLungMiceMice, Inbred BALB CAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesImmunoglobulin Gomp1 protein, Chlamydia trachomatisporin protein, NeisseriaPorinsVaccines, Synthetic

Identifiers

PMID20875490
PMCPMC2981640
OpenAlexW1967162465

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.