ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2016
Protective efficacy and immune responses by homologous prime-booster immunizations of a novel inactivated Salmonella Gallinarum vaccine candidate.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Protective efficacy of an inactivatedCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2019Article
- Harnessing the Immunomodulatory Properties of Bacterial Ghosts to Boost the Anti-mycobacterial Protective Immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Article
- Protective efficacy of aCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2017Article
- Bacterial ghosts as adjuvants: mechanisms and potential.Veterinary research · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSalmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum (SG) ghost vaccine candidate was recently constructed. In this study, we evaluated various prime-boost vaccination strategies using the candidate strain to optimize immunity and protection efficacy against fowl typhoid. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe chickens were divided into five groups designated as group A (non-immunized control), group B (orally primed and boosted), group C (primed orally and boosted intramuscularly), group D (primed and boosted intramuscularly), and group E (primed intramuscularly and boosted orally). The chickens were primed with the SG ghost at 7 days of age and were subsequently boosted at the fifth week of age. Post-immunization, the plasma IgG and intestinal secretory IgA (sIgA) levels, and the SG antigen-specific lymphocyte stimulation were monitored at weekly interval and the birds were subsequently challenged with a virulent SG strain at the third week post-second immunization.
resultsChickens in group D showed an optimized protection with significantly increased plasma IgG, sIgA, and lymphocyte stimulation response compared to all groups. The presence of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells and monocyte/macrophage (M/M) in the spleen, and splenic expression of cytokines such as interferon γ (IFN-γ) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) in the immunized chickens were investigated. The prime immunization induced significantly higher splenic M/M population and mRNA levels of IFN-γ whereas the booster showed increases of splenic CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell population and IL-6 cytokine in mRNA levels.
conclusionOur results indicate that the prime immunization with the SG ghost vaccine induced Th1 type immune response and the booster elicited both Th1- and Th2-related immune responses.
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.