ArticleInfection and immunity2012
Distinct intensity of host-pathogen interactions in Chlamydia psittaci- and Chlamydia abortus-infected chicken embryos.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complete genomes of twoMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025Article
- Compensatory mechanisms in γδ T cell-deficient chickens followingFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Expression Level of thePolish journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- A comprehensive review on avian chlamydiosis: a neglected zoonotic disease.Tropical animal health and production · 2021Review
- Pmp Repertoires Influence the Different Infectious Potential of Avian and MammalianFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Virulence-related comparative transcriptomics of infectious and non-infectious chlamydial particles.BMC genomics · 2018Article
- Article
- Immune reaction and survivability of salmonella typhimurium and salmonella infantis after infection of primary avian macrophages.PloS one · 2015Article
- A new role of the complement system: C3 provides protection in a mouse model of lung infection with intracellular Chlamydia psittaci.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Factors and mechanisms determining the differences in virulence and host specificity between the zoonotic agents Chlamydia psittaci and Chlamydia abortus are still largely unknown. In the present study, two strains were compared for their invasiveness, virulence, and capability of eliciting an immune response in chicken embryos. On breeding day 10, embryonated chicken eggs were inoculated with 5 × 10(4) inclusion-forming units. As shown by immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time PCR, C. psittaci displayed a significantly better capability of disseminating in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) and internal organs than C. abortus. The higher infectious potential of C. psittaci in birds was underlined by significantly higher mRNA expression rates of essential chlamydial genes, such as incA, groEL (in CAM, liver, and spleen), cpaf, and ftsW (in CAM). Although the immune responses to both pathogens were similar, C. psittaci elicited higher macrophage numbers and a stronger expression of a subset of immune-related proteins. The data imply that invasiveness of Chlamydia spp. and propagation in the host are not solely dependent on the level of host immune response but, even to a greater extent, on the expression of bacterial factors related to virulence. The fact that C. psittaci has coped far better than C. abortus with the avian embryo's response by upregulating essential genes may be a key to understanding the mechanisms underlying host adaptation and etiopathology.
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.