Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26079491›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Subdominant Outer Membrane Antigens in Anaplasma marginale: Conservation, Antigenicity, and Protective Capacity Using Recombinant Protein.

Deirdre R Ducken, Wendy C Brown, Debra C Alperin, Kelly A Brayton, Kathryn E Reif, Joshua E Turse, Guy H Palmer, Susan M Noh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Molecular Identification and Bioinformatics Analysis ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  3. Immunization withVaccines · 2023
    Article
  4. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Screening and Analysis ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Whole-Genome Sequencing of Mexican Strains ofInternational journal of genomics · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deirdre R DuckenAnimal Disease Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Pullman, Washington, United States of America; Program in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Wendy C BrownProgram in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Debra C AlperinProgram in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Kelly A BraytonProgram in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America; Paul G. Allen School for Global Animal Health, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Kathryn E ReifProgram in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Joshua E TurseProgram in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Guy H PalmerPaul G. Allen School for Global Animal Health, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Susan M NohAnimal Disease Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Pullman, Washington, United States of America; Program in Vector-Borne Diseases, Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America; Paul G. Allen School for Global Animal Health, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Washington State University · USUnited States Department of Agriculture · US

Funding

Infectious Diseases and Microbial Immunology Training ProgramT32AI007025 · NIAID · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Thomas H KAWULA, M KARIUKI NJENGA · 1985 to 2026
$7.4M
Antigenic variation in microbial transmissionR37AI044005 · NIAID · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PALMER, GUY HUGHES · 2009 to 2018
$3.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI044005NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI44005NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaplasma marginale is a tick-borne rickettsial pathogen of cattle with a worldwide distribution. Currently a safe and efficacious vaccine is unavailable. Outer membrane protein (OMP) extracts or a defined surface protein complex reproducibly induce protective immunity. However, there are several knowledge gaps limiting progress in vaccine development. First, are these OMPs conserved among the diversity of A. marginale strains circulating in endemic regions? Second, are the most highly conserved outer membrane proteins in the immunogens recognized by immunized and protected animals? Lastly, can this subset of OMPs recognized by antibody from protected vaccinates and conserved among strains recapitulate the protection of outer membrane vaccines? To address the first goal, genes encoding OMPs AM202, AM368, AM854, AM936, AM1041, and AM1096, major subdominant components of the outer membrane, were cloned and sequenced from geographically diverse strains and isolates. AM202, AM936, AM854, and AM1096 share 99.9 to 100% amino acid identity. AM1041 has 97.1 to 100% and AM368 has 98.3 to 99.9% amino acid identity. While all four of the most highly conserved OMPs were recognized by IgG from animals immunized with outer membranes, linked surface protein complexes, or unlinked surface protein complexes and shown to be protected from challenge, the highest titers and consistent recognition among vaccinates were to AM854 and AM936. Consequently, animals were immunized with recombinant AM854 and AM936 and challenged. Recombinant vaccinates and purified outer membrane vaccinates had similar IgG and IgG2 responses to both proteins. However, the recombinant vaccinates developed higher bacteremia after challenge as compared to adjuvant-only controls and outer membrane vaccinates. These results provide the first evidence that vaccination with specific antigens may exacerbate disease. Progressing from the protective capacity of outer membrane formulations to recombinant vaccines requires testing of additional antigens, optimization of the vaccine formulation and a better understanding of the protective immune response.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceAnaplasma marginaleAnaplasmosisAnimalsAntigens, BacterialBacterial Outer Membrane ProteinsBacterial VaccinesBinding SitesBlotting, WesternCattleCattle DiseasesImmunizationMolecular Sequence DataRecombinant ProteinsSequence Analysis, DNASequence Homology, Amino AcidAntigens, BacterialBacterial Outer Membrane ProteinsBacterial VaccinesRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26079491
PMCPMC4469585
OpenAlexW561045162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.