ArticleVeterinary world2022
Article in Veterinary world, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-epitope protein vaccine encapsulated in alginate nanoparticles as a candidate vaccine against Shigella sonnei.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Refining Immunogenicity through Intradermal Delivery of Outer Membrane Vesicles againstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Production of highly immunogenic and safe Triton X-100 produced bacterial ghost vaccine against Shigella flexneri 2b serotype.Gut pathogens · 2023Article
- An updated review on oral protein-based antigen vaccines efficiency and delivery approaches: a special attention to infectious diseases.Archives of microbiology · 2023Review
- Characterization of Shigella flexneri Serotype 6 Strains Isolated from Bangladesh and Identification of a New Phylogenetic Cluster.Journal of bacteriology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The morbidity and mortality of Materials and Methods: Thirty adult male Balb/c mice were divided into a control group, cholera toxin B subunit (CTB) group, CTB+QSSTGTNSQSDLDS (pep_1) group, CTB+DTTITKAETKTVTKNQVVDTPVTTDAAK (pep_2) group, and CTB+ ATLGATLNRLDFNVNNK (pep_3). We performed immunization by orally administering 50 μg of antigen and 50 μl of adjuvant once a week over 4 weeks. We assessed the cellular immune response by quantifying T helper 2 (Th2) and Th17 using flow cytometry. In addition, we assessed the humoral immune response by quantifying interleukin (IL-4), IL-17, secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA), and β-defensin using enzyme-linked immunoassay. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Peptide oral immunization increases the cellular immune response as reflected by the increase of Th2 (p=0.019) and Th17 (p=0.004) cell counts, particularly in the CTB_pep_1 group. Humoral immune response activation was demonstrated by increased IL-4 levels, especially in the CTB+pep_3 group (p=0.000). The IL-17 level was increased significantly in the CTB+pep_1 group (p=0.042). The mucosal immune response was demonstrated by the sIgA levels increase in the CTB+pep_3 group (p=0.042) and the β-defensin protein levels (p=0.000). Conclusion: All selected peptides activated the cellular and humoral immune responses in the intestine of mice. Further studies are necessary to optimize antigen delivery and evaluate whether the neutralizing properties of these peptides allow them to prevent bacterial infection.
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.