Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30312355›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Standardized guinea pig model for Q fever vaccine reactogenicity.

Laurie A Baeten, Brendan K Podell, Ann E Sluder, Anja Garritsen, Richard A Bowen, Mark C Poznansky

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Molecular mechanisms ofInfection and immunity · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Preclinical Animal Models for Q Fever Vaccine Development.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in immunology · 2021
    Article
  12. The Feasibility of UsingFrontiers in immunology · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Vaccines for emerging pathogens: prospects for licensure.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2019
    Review
  18. PromiscuousFrontiers in immunology · 2019
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Laurie A BaetenColorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Brendan K PodellColorado State University, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Ann E SluderMassachusetts General Hospital, Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4415-0652
Anja GarritsenInnatOss Laboratories BV, Oss, Netherlands.
Richard A BowenColorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Mark C PoznanskyMassachusetts General Hospital, Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Colorado State University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

Biomedical Research Training for VeterinariansT32OD010437 · OD · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Gregg A Dean, KELLY S SANTANGELO · 2012 to 2026
$6.2M
NIH HHS T32 OD010437
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, vaccination with Coxiella burnetii whole cell vaccines has induced hypersensitivity reactions in humans and animals that have had prior exposure to the pathogen as a result of infection or vaccination. Intradermal skin testing is routinely used to evaluate exposure in humans, and guinea pig hypersensitivity models have been developed to characterize the potential for reactogenicity in vaccine candidates. Here we describe a refinement of the guinea pig model using an alternate vaccine for positive controls. An initial comparative study used viable C. burnetii to compare the routes of sensitizing exposure of guinea pigs (intranasal vs intraperitoneal), evaluation of two time points for antigen challenge (21 and 42 days) and an assessment of two routes (intradermal and subcutaneous) of challenge using the ruminant vaccine Coxevac as the antigenic control. Animals sensitized by intraperitoneal exposure exhibited slightly larger gross reactions than did those sensitized by intranasal exposure, and reactions were more pronounced when skin challenge was performed at 42 days compared to 21 days post-sensitization. The intradermal route proved to be the optimal route of reactogenicity challenge. Histopathological changes at injection sites were similar to those previously reported and a scoring system was developed to compare reactions between groups receiving vaccine by intradermal versus subcutaneous routes. Based on the comparative study, a standardized protocol for assessment of vaccine reactogenicity in intranasally-sensitized animals was tested in a larger confirmatory study. Results suggest that screens utilizing a group size of n = 3 would achieve 90% power for detecting exposure-related reactogenic responses of the magnitude induced by Coxevac using either of two outcome measures.

Indexed as

Coxiella burnetiiAdministration, IntranasalAnimalsAntigensBacterial VaccinesDisease Models, AnimalEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleGuinea PigsInjections, IntradermalInjections, SubcutaneousQ FeverSkinTreatment OutcomeVaccinationAntigensBacterial Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID30312355
PMCPMC6185858
OpenAlexW2897049729

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.