ArticleBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2015
Comparative pathogenicity of Coxsackievirus A16 circulating and noncirculating strains in vitro and in a neonatal mouse model.
Article in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Genetic characteristics of the P1 coding region of Coxsackievirus A16 associated with hand, foot, and mouth disease in China.Molecular biology reports · 2018Article
- Murine model of acute myocarditis and cerebral cortical neuron edema induced by coxsackievirus B4.Zoological research · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An enterovirus 71 (EV71) vaccine for the prevention of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HMFD) is available, but it is not known whether the EV71 vaccine cross-protects against Coxsackievirus (CV) infection. Furthermore, although an inactivated circulating CVA16 Changchun 024 (CC024) strain vaccine candidate is effective in newborn mice, the CC024 strain causes severe lesions in muscle and lung tissues. Therefore, an effective CV vaccine with improved pathogenic safety is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo safety and in vitro replication capability of a noncirculating CVA16 SHZH05 strain. The replication capacity of circulating CVA16 strains CC024, CC045, CC090 and CC163 and the noncirculating SHZH05 strain was evaluated by cytopathic effect in different cell lines. The replication capacity and pathogenicity of the CC024 and SHZH05 strains were also evaluated in a neonatal mouse model. Histopathological and viral load analyses demonstrated that the SHZH05 strain had an in vitro replication capacity comparable to the four CC strains. The CC024, but not the SHZH05 strain, became distributed in a variety of tissues and caused severe lesions and mortality in neonatal mice. The differences in replication capacity and in vivo pathogenicity of the CC024 and SHZH05 strains may result from differences in the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of viral functional polyproteins P1, P2 and P3. Our findings suggest that the noncirculating SHZH05 strain may be a safer CV vaccine candidate than the CC024 strain.
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.