Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27050556›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Does Circulating Antibody Play a Role in the Protection of Piglets against Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus?

Korakrit Poonsuk, Luis Gabriel Giménez-Lirola, Jianqiang Zhang, Paolo Arruda, Qi Chen, Lucas Correa da Silva Carrion, Ronaldo Magtoto, Pablo Pineyro, Luciana Sarmento, Chong Wang and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The effect of chemical clarification of oral fluids on porcine epidemic diarrhea virus antibody responses.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2018
    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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Korakrit PoonsukDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Luis Gabriel Giménez-LirolaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Jianqiang ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Paolo ArrudaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Qi ChenDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Lucas Correa da Silva CarrionDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Ronaldo MagtotoDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Pablo PineyroDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Luciana SarmentoDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Chong WangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Yaxuan SunDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Darin MadsonDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
John JohnsonDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Kyoung-Jin YoonDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Jeffrey ZimmermanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Rodger MainDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, United States of America.
Iowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contribution of circulating antibody to the protection of naïve piglets against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) was evaluated using a passive antibody transfer model. Piglets (n = 62) derived from 6 sows were assigned to one of 6 different treatments using a randomized block design which provided for allocation of all treatments to all sows' litters. Each treatment was designed to achieve a different level of circulating anti-PEDV antibody via intraperitoneally administration of concentrated serum antibody. Piglets were orally inoculated with PEDV (USA/IN/2013/19338E, 1 x 103 TCID50 per piglet) 24 hours later and then monitored for 14 days. Piglets remained with their dam throughout the experiment. Sow milk samples, piglet fecal samples, and data on piglet clinical signs, body weight, and body temperature were collected daily. Fecal samples were tested by PEDV real-time reverse transcriptase PCR. Serum, colostrum, and milk were tested for PEDV IgG, IgA, and virus-neutralizing antibody. The data were evaluated for the effects of systemic PEDV antibody levels on growth, body temperature, fecal shedding, survival, and antibody response. The analysis showed that circulating antibody partially ameliorated the effect of PEDV infection. Specifically, antibody-positive groups returned to normal body temperature faster and demonstrated a higher rate of survivability than piglets without PEDV antibody. When combined with previous literature on PEDV, it can be concluded that both systemic antibodies and maternal secretory IgA in milk contribute to the protection of the neonatal pig against PEDV infections. Overall, the results of this experiment suggested that passively administered circulating antibodies contributed to the protection of neonatal piglets against PEDV infection.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus InfectionsFecesPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusSwineAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID27050556
PMCPMC4822964
OpenAlexW2335490685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.