Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23994375›Full record

Trial reportVaccine2013

Immunogenicity of a recombinant Rift Valley fever MP-12-NSm deletion vaccine candidate in calves.

John C Morrill, Richard C Laughlin, Nandadeva Lokugamage, Jing Wu, Roberta Pugh, Pooja Kanani, L Garry Adams, Shinji Makino, C J Peters

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Vaccine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Rift Valley Fever.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2017
    Review
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

John C MorrillDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, 301 University Blvd., Room 4.142B MRB, Galveston, TX 77555-1019, USA. Electronic address: jcmorril@utmb.edu.
Richard C Laughlin
Nandadeva Lokugamage
Jing Wu
Roberta Pugh
Pooja Kanani
L Garry Adams
Shinji Makino
C J Peters
Bipar · FRThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

Rift Valley Fever Vaccine Development of Animal Models and Optimize ProductionU01AI078006 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI PETERS, CLARENCE J. · 2008 to 2010
$2.6M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI078006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The safety and immunogenicity of an authentic recombinant (ar) of the live, attenuated MP-12 Rift Valley fever (RVF) vaccine virus with a large deletion of the NSm gene in the pre-Gn region of the M RNA segment (arMP-12ΔNSm21/384) was tested in 4-6 month old Bos taurus calves. Phase I of this study evaluated the neutralizing antibody response, measured by 80% plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT80), and clinical response of calves to doses of 1 × 10(1) through 1 × 10(7) plaque forming units (PFU) administered subcutaneously (s.c.). Phase II evaluated the clinical and neutralizing antibody response of calves inoculated s.c. or intramuscularly (i.m.) with 1 × 10(3), 1 × 10(4) or 1 × 10(5)PFU of arMP-12ΔNSm21/384. No significant adverse clinical events were observed in the animals in these studies. Of all specimens tested, only one vaccine viral isolate was recovered and that virus retained the introduced deletion. In the Phase I study, there was no statistically significant difference in the PRNT80 response between the dosage groups though the difference in IgG response between the 1 × 10(1)PFU group and the 1 × 10(5)PFU group was statistically significant (p<0.05). The PRNT80 response of the respective dosage groups corresponded to dose of vaccine with the 1 × 10(1)PFU dose group showing the least response. The Phase II study also showed no statistically significant difference in PRNT80 response between the dosage groups though the difference in RVFV-specific IgG values was significantly increased (p<0.001) in animals inoculated i.m. with 1 × 10(4) or 1 × 10(5)PFU versus those inoculated s.c. with 1 × 10(3) or 1 × 10(5)PFU. Although the study groups were small, these data suggest that 1 × 10(4) or 1 × 10(5)PFU of arMP-12ΔNSm21/384 administered i.m. to calves will consistently stimulate a presumably protective PRNT80 response for at least 91 days post inoculation. Further studies of arMP-12ΔNSm21/384 are warranted to explore its suitability as an efficacious livestock vaccine.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesRift Valley FeverViral VaccinesAnimalsAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCattleDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsImmunoglobulin GNeutralization TestsRift Valley fever virusSequence DeletionVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, SyntheticViral Plaque AssayAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, SyntheticViral VaccinesarMP-12ΔNSm21/384CalvesRift Valley feverRVF MP-12-NSm deletion vaccine

Identifiers

PMID23994375
PMCPMC3808170
OpenAlexW1980300709

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.