Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26468523›Full record

ArticleJournal of virology2016

Comparative In Vitro and In Vivo Studies of Porcine Rotavirus G9P[13] and Human Rotavirus Wa G1P[8].

Lulu Shao, David D Fischer, Sukumar Kandasamy, Abdul Rauf, Stephanie N Langel, David E Wentworth, Karla M Stucker, Rebecca A Halpin, Ham Ching Lam, Douglas Marthaler and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virology, 2016. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lulu ShaoFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.
David D FischerFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.
Sukumar KandasamyFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.
Abdul RaufFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.
Stephanie N LangelFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.
David E WentworthJ. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Karla M StuckerJ. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Rebecca A HalpinJ. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Ham Ching LamVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Douglas MarthalerVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Linda J SaifFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA saif.2@osu.edu vlasova.1@osu.edu.
Anastasia N VlasovaFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA saif.2@osu.edu vlasova.1@osu.edu.
The Ohio State University · USJ. Craig Venter Institute · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

The J. Craig Venter Institute Genome Center for Infectious DiseasesU19AI110819 · NIAID · J. CRAIG VENTER INSTITUTE, INC. · PI TAN, GENE · 2014 to 2018
$29.7M
NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272200900007CNIAID NIH HHS U19 AI110819NIAID NIH HHS U19AI110819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe changing epidemiology of group A rotavirus (RV) strains in humans and swine, including emerging G9 strains, poses new challenges to current vaccines. In this study, we comparatively assessed the pathogenesis of porcine RV (PRV) G9P[13] and evaluated the short-term cross-protection between this strain and human RV (HRV) Wa G1P[8] in gnotobiotic pigs. Complete genome sequencing demonstrated that PRV G9P[13] possessed a human-like G9 VP7 genotype but shared higher overall nucleotide identity with historic PRV strains. PRV G9P[13] induced longer rectal virus shedding and RV RNAemia in pigs than HRV Wa G1P[8] and generated complete short-term cross-protection in pigs challenged with HRV or PRV, whereas HRV Wa G1P[8] induced only partial protection against PRV challenge. Moreover, PRV G9P[13] replicated more extensively in porcine monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MoDCs) than did HRV Wa G1P[8]. Cross-protection was likely not dependent on serum virus-neutralizing (VN) antibodies, as the heterologous VN antibody titers in the sera of G9P[13]-inoculated pigs were low. Thus, our results suggest that heterologous protection by the current monovalent G1P[8] HRV vaccine against emerging G9 strains should be evaluated in clinical and experimental studies to prevent further dissemination of G9 strains. Differences in the pathogenesis of these two strains may be partially attributable to their variable abilities to replicate and persist in porcine immune cells, including dendritic cells (DCs). Additional studies are needed to evaluate the emerging G9 strains as potential vaccine candidates and to test the susceptibility of various immune cells to infection by G9 and other common HRV/PRV genotypes. IMPORTANCE: The changing epidemiology of porcine and human group A rotaviruses (RVs), including emerging G9 strains, may compromise the efficacy of current vaccines. An understanding of the pathogenesis and genetic, immunological, and biological features of the new emerging RV strains will contribute to the development of new surveillance and prevention tools. Additionally, studies of cross-protection between the newly identified emerging G9 porcine RV strains and a human G1 RV vaccine strain in a susceptible host (swine) will allow evaluation of G9 strains as potential novel vaccine candidates to be included in porcine or human vaccines.

Indexed as

Cross ProtectionGenotypeAnimalsAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralCapsid ProteinsDendritic CellsGenome, ViralGerm-Free LifeHumansRectumRNA, ViralRotavirusSequence Analysis, DNASequence Homology, Nucleic AcidAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralCapsid ProteinsRNA, ViralVP7 protein, Rotavirus

Identifiers

PMID26468523
PMCPMC4702550
OpenAlexW2266657453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.