ArticleVeterinary research communications2014
Immune responses to oral and IM administration of M2e-Hsp70 construct.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The eukaryotic expression plasmid of M2e-Hsp70 is a candidate M2e-based DNA vaccine. In order to evaluate the immunization potential of this construct, Specific Pathogen Free chickens were immunized either intramuscularly or orally. Mutant Salmonella typhimurium was used as carrier for oral delivery of the M2e-Hsp70 construct. M2e-specific humoral and cellular responses were tested by ELISA and Lymphocyte Proliferation Assay, respectively. Our results indicate that both humoral and cellular immune responses are conferred against M2e-Hsp70 plasmid in either of the intramuscular or oral routes of administration; however, these responses are significantly higher in intramuscular injection in contrast to oral administration. When it comes to mass vaccination of commercial chicken flocks oral administration is preferred due to the ease of application as well as its capability of eliciting mucosal, humoral and cellular immune responses; so measurements should be taken to improve the immunization potency of our orally delivered DNA vaccine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24595641What 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.