ArticleOncotarget2017
Evaluation of protective efficacy of three novel H3N2 canine influenza vaccines.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Vaccination with an inactivated canine influenza H3N2 virus vaccine is safe and elicits an immune response in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine influenza virus (CIV) has the potential risk to spread in different areas and dog types. Thus, there is a growing need to develop an effective vaccine to control CIV disease. Here, we developed three vaccine candidates: 1) a recombinant pVAX1 vector expressing H3N2 CIV hemagglutinin (pVAX1-HA); 2) a live attenuated canine adenovirus type 2 expressing H3N2 CIV hemagglutinin (rCAV2-HA); and 3) an inactivated H3N2 CIV (A/canine/Guangdong/01/2006 (H3N2)). Mice received an initial intramuscular immunization that followed two booster injections at 2 and 4 weeks post-vaccination (wpv). The splenic lymphocytes were collected to assess the immune responses at 6 wpv. The protective efficacy was evaluated by challenging H3N2 CIV after vaccination (at 6 wpv). Our results demonstrated that all three vaccine candidates elicited cytokine and antibody responses in mice. The rCAV2-HA vaccine and the inactivated vaccine generated efficient protective efficacy in mice, whereas limited protection was provided by the pVAX1-HA DNA vaccine. Therefore, both the rCAV2-HA live recombinant virus and the inactivated CIV could be used as potential novel vaccines against H3N2CIV. This study provides guidance for choosing the most appropriate vaccine for the prevention and control of CIV disease.
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.