ReviewFrontiers in immunology2015
Oral Vaccination of Fish - Antigen Preparations, Uptake, and Immune Induction.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Protective Efficacy of Vaccines Against Grass Carp Hemorrhagic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of fish diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Potential of inclusion bodies for disease control in aquaculture and livestock.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Review
- Vaccination modality and injection site influence the immune response and protection against sea liceBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing vibriosis vaccination in fish: genetically modified Nannochloropsis sp. as an oral vaccine carrier.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Antibiotic use in Chilean salmon aquaculture: antimicrobial resistance, sustainability, and One Health implications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Immune Response of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Vaccinated With Diatom-Based Oral Vaccines Against Piscine Francisellosis.Journal of fish diseases · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges inVaccines · 2025Review
- TransgenicMarine drugs · 2024Article
- Navigating Fish Immunity: Focus on Mucosal Immunity and the Evolving Landscape of Mucosal Vaccines.Biology · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in Oral Vaccines for Animals.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- Transforming Aquaculture through Vaccination: A Review on Recent Developments and Milestones.Vaccines · 2024Review
- An Introduction to Relevant Immunology Principles with Respect to Oral Vaccines in Aquaculture.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- The efficacy of new oral vaccine feeds againstFish and shellfish immunology reports · 2023Article
- Nanovaccines to CombatVaccines · 2023Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Booster Vaccine Efficacy by Intracoelomic Injection and Immersion with a Whole-Cell Killed Vaccine againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
- Evaluation of feed utilization, immune response and disease resistance in striped catfish,Fish and shellfish immunology reports · 2022Article
- Microencapsulation ofPolymers · 2022Article
- Current status and advances of fish vaccines in Malaysia.Veterinary world · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oral route offers the most attractive approach of immunization of fish for a number of reasons: the ease of administration of antigens, it is less stressful than parenteral delivery and in principle, it is applicable to small and large sized fish; it also provides a procedure for oral boosting during grow-out periods in cages or ponds. There are, however, not many commercial vaccines available at the moment due to lack of efficacy and challenges associated with production of large quantities of antigens. These are required to stimulate an effective immune response locally and systemically, and need to be protected against degradation before they reach the sites where immune induction occurs. The hostile stomach environment is believed to be particularly important with regard to degradation of antigens in certain species. There is also a poor understanding about the requirements for proper immune induction following oral administration on one side, and the potential for induction of tolerance on the other. To what extent primary immunization via the oral route will elicit both local and systemic responses is not understood in detail. Furthermore, to what extent parenteral delivery will protect mucosal/gut surfaces and vice-versa is also not fully understood. We review the work that has been done on the subject and discuss it in light of recent advances that include mass production of antigens, including the use of plant systems. Different encapsulation techniques that have been developed in the quest to protect antigens against digestive degradation, as well as to target them for appropriate immune induction are also highlighted.
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.