Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27765064›Full record

ArticleVeterinary research2016

Distinct immune responses and virus shedding in pigs following aerosol, intra-nasal and contact infection with pandemic swine influenza A virus, A(H1N1)09.

Johanneke D Hemmink, Sophie B Morgan, Mario Aramouni, Helen Everett, Francisco J Salguero, Laetitia Canini, Emily Porter, Margo Chase-Topping, Katy Beck, Ronan Mac Loughlin and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Johanneke D HemminkThe Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, UK.
Sophie B MorganThe Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, UK.
Mario AramouniVirology Department, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, UK.
Helen EverettVirology Department, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, UK.
Francisco J SalgueroSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Surrey, Guilford, UK.
Laetitia CaniniCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh, UK.
Emily PorterSchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Margo Chase-ToppingCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh, UK.
Katy BeckVirology Department, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, UK.
Ronan Mac LoughlinAerogen IDA Business park Dangan, Galway, Ireland.
B Veronica CarrThe Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, UK.
Ian H BrownVirology Department, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, UK.
Mick BaileySchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Mark WoolhouseCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh, UK.
Sharon M BrookesVirology Department, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Weybridge, Addlestone, UK.
Bryan CharlestonThe Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, UK.
Elma TchilianThe Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, UK. elma.tchilian@pirbright.ac.uk.
The Pirbright Institute · GBAnimal and Plant Health Agency · GBCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBAerogen (Ireland) · IEUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L001330/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Influenza virus infection in pigs is a major farming problem, causing considerable economic loss and posing a zoonotic threat. In addition the pig is an excellent model for understanding immunity to influenza viruses as this is a natural host pathogen system. Experimentally, influenza virus is delivered to pigs intra-nasally, by intra-tracheal instillation or by aerosol, but there is little data comparing the outcome of different methods. We evaluated the shedding pattern, cytokine responses in nasal swabs and immune responses following delivery of low or high dose swine influenza pdmH1N1 virus to the respiratory tract of pigs intra-nasally or by aerosol and compared them to those induced in naturally infected contact pigs. Our data shows that natural infection by contact induces remarkably high innate and adaptive immune response, although the animals were exposed to a very low virus dose. In contacts, the kinetics of virus shedding were slow and prolonged and more similar to the low dose directly infected animals. In contrast the cytokine profile in nasal swabs, antibody and cellular immune responses of contacts more closely resemble immune responses in high dose directly inoculated animals. Consideration of these differences is important for studies of disease pathogenesis and assessment of vaccine protective efficacy.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAerosolsAnimalsCytokinesFemaleFlow CytometryInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInhalation ExposureLungNasal CavityOrthomyxoviridae InfectionsSwineSwine DiseasesVirus SheddingAerosolsCytokines

Identifiers

PMID27765064
PMCPMC5073419
OpenAlexW2538034216

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.