Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34960203›Full record

ArticleVaccines2021

Comparative Evaluation of Immune Responses and Protection of Chitosan Nanoparticles and Oil-Emulsion Adjuvants in Avian Coronavirus Inactivated Vaccines in Chickens.

Priscila Diniz Lopes, Cintia Hiromi Okino, Filipe Santos Fernando, Caren Pavani, Viviane Casagrande Mariguela, Maria de Fátima Silva Montassier, Hélio José Montassier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Priscila Diniz LopesDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9121-8205
Cintia Hiromi OkinoEmbrapa Southeast Livestock, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Canchim Farm, São Carlos 13560-970, Brazil.
Filipe Santos FernandoDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.
Caren PavaniDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.
Viviane Casagrande MariguelaDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.
Maria de Fátima Silva MontassierDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.
Hélio José MontassierDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, Jaboticabal, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BR

Funding

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development 140100/2015-6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient vaccines are the main strategy to control the avian coronavirus (AvCoV), although several drawbacks related to traditional attenuated and inactivated vaccines have been reported. These counterpoints highlight the importance of developing new alternative vaccines against AvCoV, especially those able to induce long-lasting immune responses. This study evaluated and compared two inactivated vaccines formulated with AvCoV BR-I variants, one composed of chitosan nanoparticles (AvCoV-CS) and the second by Montanide oily adjuvant (AvCoV-O). Both developed vaccines were administered in a single dose or associated with the traditional Mass attenuated vaccine. The AvCoV-CS vaccine administered alone or associated with the Mass vaccine was able to induce strong humoral and cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses and complete protection against IBV virulent infection, wherein single administration was characterized by high IgA antibody levels in the mucosa, whereas when associated with the Mass vaccine, the serum IgG antibody was predominantly observed. On the other hand, single administration of the oily vaccine presented poor humoral and CMI responses and consequently incomplete protection against virulent challenge, but when associated with the Mass vaccine, immune responses were developed, and complete protection against infection was observed. Both of our experimental vaccines were able to induce full protection against virulent IBV challenge. A single dose of AvCoV-CS vaccine was sufficient to achieve complete protection, while AvCoV-O required a previous priming by a Mass strain to complete the protection.

Indexed as

avian infectious bronchitiscellular immune responsedelivery carrier-adjuvantmucosal immunizationoil adjuvant

Identifiers

PMID34960203
PMCPMC8705532
OpenAlexW4200109926

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.