ArticleVaccine: X2021
Analysis of immune responses to attenuated alcelaphine herpesvirus 1 formulated with and without adjuvant.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and immunogenicity of a malignant catarrhal fever vaccine candidate expressing ovine gammaherpesvirus-2 glycoprotein B in cattle.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Article
- Wildebeest-Derived Malignant Catarrhal Fever: A Bovine Peripheral T Cell Lymphoma Caused by Cross-Species Transmission ofViruses · 2023Review
- A Vaccine Targeting Ovine Herpesvirus 2 Glycoprotein B Protects against Sheep-Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever.Vaccines · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The experimental vaccine for bovine malignant catarrhal fever consists of viable attenuated alcelaphine herpesvirus 1 (AlHV-1) derived by extensive culture passage, combined with an oil-in-water adjuvant, delivered intramuscularly. This immunisation strategy was over 80% effective in previous experimental and field trials and protection appeared to be associated with induction of virus-neutralising antibodies. Whether the vaccine virus is required to be viable at the point of immunisation and whether adjuvant is required to induce the appropriate immune responses remains unclear. To address these issues two studies were performed, firstly to analyse immune responses in the presence and absence of adjuvant and secondly, to investigate immune responses to vaccines containing adjuvant plus viable or inactivated AlHV-1. The first study showed that viable attenuated AlHV-1 in the absence of adjuvant induced virus-specific antibodies but the titres of virus-neutralising antibodies were significantly lower than those induced by vaccine containing viable virus and adjuvant, suggesting adjuvant was required for optimal responses. In contrast, the second study found that the vaccine containing inactivated (>99.9%) AlHV-1 induced similar levels of virus-neutralising antibody to the equivalent formulation containing viable AlHV-1. Together these studies suggest that the MCF vaccine acts as an antigen depot for induction of immune responses, requiring adjuvant and a suitable antigen source, which need not be viable virus. These observations may help in directing the development of alternative MCF vaccine formulations for distribution in the absence of an extensive cold chain.
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.