Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27311020›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Influenza A Virus Challenge Models in Cynomolgus Macaques Using the Authentic Inhaled Aerosol and Intra-Nasal Routes of Infection.

Anthony C Marriott, Mike Dennis, Jennifer A Kane, Karen E Gooch, Graham Hatch, Sally Sharpe, Claudia Prevosto, Gail Leeming, Elsa-Gayle Zekeng, Karl J Staples and 12 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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Animal Models in Influenza Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Infection of Cultured Mammalian Cells with Aerosolized Influenza Virus.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

22 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony C MarriottNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Mike DennisNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Jennifer A KaneNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Karen E GoochNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Graham HatchNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Sally SharpeNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Claudia PrevostoNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Gail LeemingDepartment of Infection Biology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Elsa-Gayle ZekengDepartment of Infection Biology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Karl J StaplesClinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Graham HallNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Kathryn A RyanNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Simon BateNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Nathifa MoyoDepartment of Infection Biology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Catherine J WhittakerNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Bassam HallisNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Nigel J SilmanNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Ajit LalvaniDepartment of Respiratory Infections, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Tom M WilkinsonClinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Julian A HiscoxDepartment of Infection Biology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
James P StewartDepartment of Infection Biology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Miles W CarrollNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.
Public Health England · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-human primates are the animals closest to humans for use in influenza A virus challenge studies, in terms of their phylogenetic relatedness, physiology and immune systems. Previous studies have shown that cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) are permissive for infection with H1N1pdm influenza virus. These studies have typically used combined challenge routes, with the majority being intra-tracheal delivery, and high doses of virus (> 107 infectious units). This paper describes the outcome of novel challenge routes (inhaled aerosol, intra-nasal instillation) and low to moderate doses (103 to 106 plaque forming units) of H1N1pdm virus in cynomolgus macaques. Evidence of virus replication and sero-conversion were detected in all four challenge groups, although the disease was sub-clinical. Intra-nasal challenge led to an infection confined to the nasal cavity. A low dose (103 plaque forming units) did not lead to detectable infectious virus shedding, but a 1000-fold higher dose led to virus shedding in all intra-nasal challenged animals. In contrast, aerosol and intra-tracheal challenge routes led to infections throughout the respiratory tract, although shedding from the nasal cavity was less reproducible between animals compared to the high-dose intra-nasal challenge group. Intra-tracheal and aerosol challenges induced a transient lymphopaenia, similar to that observed in influenza-infected humans, and greater virus-specific cellular immune responses in the blood were observed in these groups in comparison to the intra-nasal challenge groups. Activation of lung macrophages and innate immune response genes was detected at days 5 to 7 post-challenge. The kinetics of infection, both virological and immunological, were broadly in line with human influenza A virus infections. These more authentic infection models will be valuable in the determination of anti-influenza efficacy of novel entities against less severe (and thus more common) influenza infections.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAdministration, IntranasalAerosolsAnimalsBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidComputational BiologyDisease Models, AnimalDogsHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInterferon-gammaLymphocytesLymphopeniaMacaca fascicularisMacrophages, AlveolarMadin Darby Canine Kidney CellsAerosolsInterferon-gammaProteome

Identifiers

PMID27311020
PMCPMC4911124
OpenAlexW2439412971

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.