ArticleJournal of veterinary science2020
Improved immune responses and safety of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine containing immunostimulating components in pigs.
Article in Journal of veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of toll-like receptor agonists as therapeutic agents and vaccine adjuvants for infectious diseases in animals: a systematic review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Pooled it
- Enhanced Effects of ISA 207 Adjuvant via Intradermal Route in Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine for Pigs.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Combined Adjuvant Formulations Enhanced an Immune Response of Trivalent Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine in Cattle.Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- TLR4 Agonist Combined with Trivalent Protein JointS ofVaccines · 2021Article
- Cord Blood-Based Approach to Assess Candidate Vaccine Adjuvants Designed for Neonates and Infants.Vaccines · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of a vaccine depends strongly on the effects of the adjuvants applied simultaneously with the antigen in the vaccine. The adjuvants enhance the protective effect of the vaccine against a viral challenge. Conversely, oil-type adjuvants leave oil residue inside the bodies of the injected animals that can produce a local reaction in the muscle. The long-term immunogenicity of mice after vaccination was examined. ISA206 or ISA15 oil adjuvants maintained the best immunity, protective capability, and safety among the oil adjuvants in the experimental group.
objectivesThis study screened the adjuvant composites aimed at enhancing foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) immunity. The C-type lectin or toll-like receptor (TLR) agonist showed the most improved protection rate.
methodsExperimental vaccines were fabricated by mixing various known oil adjuvants and composites that can act as immunogenic adjuvants (gel, saponin, and other components) and examined the enhancement effect on the vaccine.
resultsThe water in oil (W/O) and water in oil in water (W/O/W) adjuvants showed better immune effects than the oil in water (O/W) adjuvants, which have a small volume of oil component. The W/O type left the largest amount of oil residue, followed by W/O/W and O/W types. In the mouse model, intramuscular inoculation showed a better protection rate than subcutaneous inoculation. Moreover, the protective effect was particularly weak in the case of inoculation in fatty tissue. The initial immune reaction and persistence of long-term immunity were also confirmed in an immune reaction on pigs.
conclusionsThe new experimental vaccine with immunostimulants produces improved immune responses and safety in pigs than general oil-adjuvanted vaccines.
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.