Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33092272›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2020

Gisela F Erf, Gilles Le Pape, Sylvie Rémy, Caroline Denesvre

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gisela F ErfDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Gilles Le PapeAnastats, 14 rue de la Bretonnerie, 37000 Tours, France.
Sylvie RémyISP, INRAE, Université Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France.
Caroline DenesvreISP, INRAE, Université Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France.
Université de Tours · FRUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville · US

Funding

Institut Carnot Santé Animale MARDISHEDTyson Professorship in Avian Immunology G. Erf
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herpesvirus of turkey (HVT) is commonly used as a vaccine to protect chickens against Marek's disease. Following vaccination, HVT infects feathers where it can be detected in all chicken lines examined. Unlike the parental Brown line (BL), Smyth line (SL) chickens develop vitiligo, due to autoimmune destruction of melanocytes in feathers. Previous reports showed a strong inflammatory response in Smyth chickens' feathers at vitiligo onset, that subsided once melanocytes were destroyed, and depigmentation was complete. Here, we questioned whether the local autoimmune response in the Smyth model influences HVT infection and persistence in feathers. For this, one-day-old SL and BL chickens were vaccinated with Newcastle disease (rHVT-ND). Vitiligo was scored and HVT loads in pigmented and non-pigmented growing feathers were quantified regularly over 20 weeks. Chickens of both lines showed moderate HVT loads in feathers. At the onset of active vitiligo, the HVT load was significantly higher in SL compared to BL feathers. However, no difference in HVT loads was noticed between pigmented and non-pigmented feathers from SL chickens. Therefore, surprisingly, the inflammatory response in feathers of SL chickens did not inhibit HVT infection and persistence, but on the contrary, temporarily promoted HVT infection in feathers.

Indexed as

feathersherpesvirus of turkeyMarek’s disease vaccineSmyth lineviral persistencevitiligo

Identifiers

PMID33092272
PMCPMC7589623
OpenAlexW3093635596

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.