Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29744628›Full record

ArticleEcoHealth2018

Impact of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine on Non-target Small Rodents in Grassland Ecosystems.

Gebbiena M Bron, Katherine L D Richgels, Michael D Samuel, Julia E Poje, Faye Lorenzsonn, Jonathan P Matteson, Jesse T Boulerice, Jorge E Osorio, Tonie E Rocke

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EcoHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Plague vaccines: new developments in an ongoing search.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gebbiena M BronDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Katherine L D RichgelsU.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI, 53711, USA.
Michael D SamuelWisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Julia E PojeDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Faye LorenzsonnU.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI, 53711, USA.
Jonathan P MattesonDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Jesse T BoulericeWyoming Game and Fish Department, 528 South Adams Street, Laramie, WY, USA.
Jorge E OsorioDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Tonie E RockeU.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI, 53711, USA. trocke@usgs.gov.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USNational Wildlife Health Center · USUnited States Geological Survey · USWyoming Game and Fish Department · US

Funding

Morris Animal Foundation (#D14ZO-031)Morris Animal Foundation #D14ZO-412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral vaccination is an emerging management strategy to reduce the prevalence of high impact infectious diseases within wild animal populations. Plague is a flea-borne zoonosis of rodents that often decimates prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) colonies in the western USA. Recently, an oral sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) was developed to protect prairie dogs from plague and aid recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Although oral vaccination programs are targeted toward specific species, field distribution of vaccine-laden baits can result in vaccine uptake by non-target animals and unintended indirect effects. We assessed the impact of SPV on non-target rodents at paired vaccine and placebo-treated prairie dog colonies in four US states from 2013 to 2015. Bait consumption by non-target rodents was high (70.8%, n = 3113), but anti-plague antibody development on vaccine plots was low (23.7%, n = 266). In addition, no significant differences were noted in combined deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) abundance or community evenness and richness of non-target rodents between vaccine-treated and placebo plots. In our 3-year field study, we could not detect a significant positive or negative effect of SPV application on non-target rodents.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildEcosystemFerretsPeromyscusPlaguePlague VaccineRodent DiseasesSciuridaeSiphonapteraUnited StatesYersinia pestisPlague VaccineNon-target rodentsOnychomys leucogasterPeromyscusPlagueSylvatic plague vaccineYersinia pestis

Identifiers

PMID29744628
OpenAlexW2801376246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.