Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21609745›Full record

ArticleVaccine2011

Induction of protection against vaginal shedding and infertility by a recombinant Chlamydia vaccine.

Jennifer R Carmichael, Sukumar Pal, Delia Tifrea, Luis M de la Maza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A VCG-Based MultiepitopeBiomedicines · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Vaginal delivery of vaccines.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Expert review of vaccines · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Infection and immunity · 2020
    Article
  14. Protection of outbred mice against a vaginal challenge by aHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer R CarmichaelDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical Sciences, Room D440, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-4800, USA.
Sukumar Pal
Delia Tifrea
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-67888NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI067888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A vaccine formulated with the Chlamydia muridarum recombinant major outer membrane protein, plus the adjuvants CpG and Montanide, was tested for its ability to protect BALB/c mice against a vaginal challenge. Mice were immunized by mucosal [intravaginal (i.vag.) plus colonic (col.), or intranasal (i.n.) plus sublingual (s.l.)], or systemic [intramuscular (i.m.) plus subcutaneous (s.c.)] routes, and a combination of mucosal priming and systemic boosting routes. A negative control group was vaccinated with the Neisseria gonorrhoeae porin B (Ng-rPorB) and a positive control group was inoculated in the nares with live Chlamydia. The strongest Chlamydia-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were observed in the groups immunized by a combination of mucosal and systemic routes. Following the vaginal challenge, groups immunized using mucosal priming followed by systemic immunization had a significant decrease in the number of mice with positive vaginal cultures. For example, of the mice immunized i.n./s.l.+i.m./s.c., 24% had positive cultures during the six weeks of the experiment versus 69% for the negative control group immunized with Ng-rPorB (P<0.05). Similarly, the groups of mice primed by the mucosal routes and boosted by the systemic routes had significantly less IFU in the vaginal cultures when compared to the Ng-rPorB animals (P<0.05). These combination groups were also protected against infertility. The two groups had fertility rates of 100% (i.n./s.l.+i.m./s.c.) and 81% (i.vag./col.+i.m./s.c.) equivalent to the positive-control group immunized with live Chlamydia (100% fertility; P>0.05). These results show the importance of the schedule and routes of vaccination and represent the first study to show protection against infertility by a Chlamydia recombinant subunit vaccine.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia muridarumChlamydia trachomatisFemaleImmunity, CellularImmunity, HumoralInfertilityMannitolMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMucous MembraneNeisseria gonorrhoeaeAdjuvants, ImmunologicAntibodies, BacterialBacterial VaccinesMannitolmontanide ISA 51Oleic AcidsVaccines, Synthetic

Identifiers

PMID21609745
PMCPMC3139009
OpenAlexW2143231340

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.