Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22919678›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2012

Inhalational anthrax (Ames aerosol) in naïve and vaccinated New Zealand rabbits: characterizing the spread of bacteria from lung deposition to bacteremia.

Bradford W Gutting, Tonya L Nichols, Stephen R Channel, Jeffery M Gearhart, George A Andrews, Alan E Berger, Ryan S Mackie, Brent J Watson, Sarah C Taft, Katie A Overheim and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Computational fluid dynamics modeling ofJournal of aerosol science · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Infectious disease aerobiology: miasma incarnate.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2012
    Article
  13. Deterministic models of inhalational anthrax in New Zealand white rabbits.Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science
    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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Bradford W GuttingNaval Surface Warfare Center (Dahlgren Division), Dahlgren VA, USA. dlgr_nswc_z20@navy.mil
Tonya L Nichols
Stephen R Channel
Jeffery M Gearhart
George A Andrews
Alan E Berger
Ryan S Mackie
Brent J Watson
Sarah C Taft
Katie A Overheim
Robert L Sherwood
Naval Surface Warfare Center · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USLovelace Respiratory Research Institute · USDefense Threat Reduction Agency · USWright-Patterson Air Force Base · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a need to better understand inhalational anthrax in relevant animal models. This understanding could aid risk assessment, help define therapeutic windows, and provide a better understanding of disease. The aim here was to characterize and quantify bacterial deposition and dissemination in rabbits following exposure to single high aerosol dose (> 100 LD(50)) of Bacillus anthracis (Ames) spores immediately following exposure through 36 h. The primary goal of collecting the data was to support investigators in developing computational models of inhalational anthrax disease. Rabbits were vaccinated prior to exposure with the human vaccine (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed, AVA) or were sham-vaccinated, and were then exposed in pairs (one sham and one AVA) so disease kinetics could be characterized in equally-dosed hosts where one group is fully protected and is able to clear the infection (AVA-vaccinated), while the other is susceptible to disease, in which case the bacteria are able to escape containment and replicate uncontrolled (sham-vaccinated rabbits). Between 4-5% of the presented aerosol dose was retained in the lung of sham- and AVA-vaccinated rabbits as measured by dilution plate analysis of homogenized lung tissue or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. After 6 and 36 h, >80% and >96%, respectively, of the deposited spores were no longer detected in BAL, with no detectable difference between sham- or AVA-vaccinated rabbits. Thereafter, differences between the two groups became noticeable. In sham-vaccinated rabbits the bacteria were detected in the tracheobronchial lymph nodes (TBLN) 12 h post-exposure and in the circulation at 24 h, a time point which was also associated with dramatic increases in vegetative CFU in the lung tissue of some animals. In all sham-vaccinated rabbits, bacteria increased in both TBLN and blood through 36 h at which point in time some rabbits succumbed to disease. In contrast, AVA-vaccinated rabbits showed small numbers of CFU in TBLN between 24 and 36 h post-exposure with small numbers of bacteria in the circulation only at 24 h post-exposure. These results characterize and quantify disease progression in naïve rabbits following aerosol administration of Ames spores which may be useful in a number of different research applications, including developing quantitative models of infection for use in human inhalational anthrax risk assessment.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnthraxAnthrax VaccinesBacillus anthracisBacteremiaBacterial LoadBloodDisease Models, AnimalFollow-Up StudiesInhalation ExposureLungLymph NodesRabbitsRespiratory Tract InfectionsTime FactorsAnthrax VaccinesAmesanthraxblooddepositioninhalationallunglymphrabbit

Identifiers

PMID22919678
PMCPMC3417635
OpenAlexW2115165967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.