ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017
Immune response of rats vaccinated orally with various plant-expressed recombinant cysteine proteinase constructs when challenged with Fasciola hepatica metacercariae.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rickettsial Diseases and Vaccines: Is There an Opportunity for Plant-Made Vaccine Technology?Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
- Attacking the Intruder at the Gate: Prospects of Mucosal Anti SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Plant-Based Vaccines in Combat against Coronavirus Diseases.Vaccines · 2022Review
- Edible Vaccines: Promises and Challenges.Molecular biotechnology · 2020Review
- Progress in biopharmaceutical development.Biotechnology and applied biochemistry · 2018Review
- A Preliminary Study of a Lettuce-Based Edible Vaccine Expressing the Cysteine Proteinase ofFrontiers in immunology · 2018Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCysteine proteinases of Fasciola hepatica are important candidates for vaccine antigens because of their role in fluke biology and host-parasite relationships. In our previous experiments, we found that a recombinant cysteine proteinase cloned from adult F. hepatica (CPFhW) can protect rats against liver fluke infections when it is administered intramuscularly or intranasally in the form of cDNA. We also observed considerable protection upon challenge following mucosal vaccination with inclusion bodies containing recombinant CPFhW produced in Escherichia coli. In this study, we explore oral vaccination, which may be the desired method of delivery and is potentially capable of preventing infections at the site of helminth entry. To provide antigen encapsulation and to protect the vaccine antigen from degradation in the intestinal tract, transgenic plant-based systems are used. METHODOLOGY: In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the protective ability of mucosal vaccinations of 12-week-old rats with CPFhW produced in a transgenic-plant-based system. To avoid inducing tolerance and to maximise the immune response induced by oral immunisation, we used the hepatitis B virus (HBV) core protein (HBcAg) as a carrier. Animals were immunised with two doses of the antigen and challenged with 25 or 30 metacercariae of F. hepatica.
conclusionsWe obtained substantial protection after oral administration of the plant-produced hybrids of CPFhW and HBcAg. The highest level of protection (65.4%) was observed in animals immunised with transgenic plants expressing the mature CPFhW enzyme flanked by Gly-rich linkers and inserted into c/e1 epitope of truncated HBcAg. The immunised rats showed clear IgG1 and IgM responses to CPFhW for 4 consecutive weeks after the challenge.
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.