Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21593028›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2011

Transmission and dose-response experiments for social animals: a reappraisal of the colonization biology of Campylobacter jejuni in chickens.

Andrew J K Conlan, John E Line, Kelli Hiett, Chris Coward, Pauline M Van Diemen, Mark P Stevens, Michael A Jones, Julia R Gog, Duncan J Maskell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Strain-Specific Differences in Survival ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  4. Dose-response and transmission: the nexus between reservoir hosts, environment and recipient hosts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew J K ConlanCambridge Infectious Diseases Consortium, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK. a.j.k.conlan@damtp.cam.ac.uk
John E Line
Kelli Hiett
Chris Coward
Pauline M Van Diemen
Mark P Stevens
Michael A Jones
Julia R Gog
Duncan J Maskell
University of Cambridge · GBAgricultural Research Service · USThe Pirbright Institute · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/C500852/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/C500936/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dose-response experiments characterize the relationship between infectious agents and their hosts. These experiments are routinely used to estimate the minimum effective infectious dose for an infectious agent, which is most commonly characterized by the dose at which 50 per cent of challenged hosts become infected-the ID(50). In turn, the ID(50) is often used to compare between different agents and quantify the effect of treatment regimes. The statistical analysis of dose-response data typically makes the assumption that hosts within a given dose group are independent. For social animals, in particular avian species, hosts are routinely housed together in groups during experimental studies. For experiments with non-infectious agents, this poses no practical or theoretical problems. However, transmission of infectious agents between co-housed animals will modify the observed dose-response relationship with implications for the estimation of the ID(50) and the comparison between different agents and treatments. We derive a simple correction to the likelihood for standard dose-response models that allows us to estimate dose-response and transmission parameters simultaneously. We use this model to show that: transmission between co-housed animals reduces the apparent value of the ID(50) and increases the variability between replicates leading to a distinctive all-or-nothing response; in terms of the total number of animals used, individual housing is always the most efficient experimental design for ascertaining dose-response relationships; estimates of transmission from previously published experimental data for Campylobacter spp. in chickens suggest that considerable transmission occurred, greatly increasing the uncertainty in the estimates of dose-response parameters reported in the literature. Furthermore, we demonstrate that accounting for transmission in the analysis of dose-response data for Campylobacter spp. challenges our current understanding of the differing response of chickens with respect to host-age and in vivo passage of bacteria. Our findings suggest that the age-dependence of transmissibility between hosts-rather than their susceptibility to colonization-is the mechanism behind the 'lag-phase' reported in commercial flocks, which are typically found to be Campylobacter free for the first 14-21 days of life.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsCampylobacter InfectionsCampylobacter jejuniChickensCommunicable DiseasesDisease OutbreaksDose-Response Relationship, DrugModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalPoultry DiseasesStochastic Processes

Identifiers

PMID21593028
PMCPMC3203482
OpenAlexW2134732534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.