ArticleVaccine2010
A new murine model for testing vaccines against genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in males.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Two groups of 50 BALB/c male mice were immunized with live Chlamydia trachomatis mouse pneumonitis (MoPn) using the intranasal (i.n.) or the meatus urethra (intraurethral: i.u.) routes. As a control group, 100 male mice were sham-immunized in parallel. Both groups of animals vaccinated with live organisms developed strong Chlamydia-specific humoral and cell mediated immune responses. Based on the IgG2a/IgG1 ratio and the levels of IFN-γ both groups mounted a Th1 immune response. At six weeks following the immunization, all mice were challenged in the meatus urethra. The urethra, urinary bladder, testes and epididymides were harvested at weekly intervals and tested for the presence of C. trachomatis. Based on the culture results from these four organs both groups of Chlamydia-immunized mice showed significant protection. In the group immunized i.u., 10% (5/50) had positive cultures, while in the group immunized i.n. 28% (14/50) had positive cultures during the 5 weeks of observation. In contrast, in the sham-immunized animals 47% (47/100) had positive cultures (P<0.005) during the study period. In addition, the number of positive organs, the length of time that the animal had positive cultures, and the total number of inclusion forming units (IFU) recovered were overall significantly lower in the i.u. or i.n. groups in comparison with the sham-immunized animals. However, in relation to the i.u. immunized group, the protection elicited in the i.n. group was delayed and not as robust. In conclusion, immunization of mice in the meatus urethra may provide the gold standard for testing Chlamydia vaccines in a male model.
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.