Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35898545›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Protective Efficacy of H9N2 Avian Influenza Vaccines Inactivated by Ionizing Radiation Methods Administered by the Parenteral or Mucosal Routes.

Alessio Bortolami, Eva Mazzetto, Richard Thiga Kangethe, Viskam Wijewardana, Mario Barbato, Luca Porfiri, Silvia Maniero, Elisa Mazzacan, Jane Budai, Sabrina Marciano and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessio BortolamiDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Eva MazzettoDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Richard Thiga KangetheAnimal Production and Health Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
Viskam WijewardanaAnimal Production and Health Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
Mario BarbatoAnimal Production and Health Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
Luca PorfiriAnimal Production and Health Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
Silvia ManieroDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Elisa MazzacanDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Jane BudaiDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Sabrina MarcianoDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Valentina PanzarinDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Calogero TerreginoDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Francesco BonfanteDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Giovanni CattoliAnimal Production and Health Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITInternational Atomic Energy Agency · ATUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

H9N2 viruses have become, over the last 20 years, one of the most diffused poultry pathogens and have reached a level of endemicity in several countries. Attempts to control the spread and reduce the circulation of H9N2 have relied mainly on vaccination in endemic countries. However, the high level of adaptation to poultry, testified by low minimum infectious doses, replication to high titers, and high transmissibility, has severely hampered the results of vaccination campaigns. Commercially available vaccines have demonstrated high efficacy in protecting against clinical disease, but variable results have also been observed in reducing the level of replication and viral shedding in domestic poultry species. Antigenic drift and increased chances of zoonotic infections are the results of incomplete protection offered by the currently available vaccines, of which the vast majority are based on formalin-inactivated whole virus antigens. In our work, we evaluated experimental vaccines based on an H9N2 virus, inactivated by irradiation treatment, in reducing viral shedding upon different challenge doses and compared their efficacy with formalin-inactivated vaccines. Moreover, we evaluated mucosal delivery of inactivated antigens as an alternative route to subcutaneous and intramuscular vaccination. The results showed complete protection and prevention of replication in subcutaneously vaccinated Specific Pathogen Free White Leghorn chickens at low-to-intermediate challenge doses but a limited reduction of shedding at a high challenge dose. Mucosally vaccinated chickens showed a more variable response to experimental infection at all tested challenge doses and the main effect of vaccination attained the reduction of infected birds in the early phase of infection. Concerning mucosal vaccination, the irradiated vaccine was the only one affording complete protection from infection at the lowest challenge dose. Vaccine formulations based on H9N2 inactivated by irradiation demonstrated a potential for better performances than vaccines based on the formalin-inactivated antigen in terms of reduction of shedding and prevention of infection.

Indexed as

formalin-inactivatedH9N2irradiatedmucosalsubcutaneousvaccines

Identifiers

PMID35898545
PMCPMC9309530
OpenAlexW4285007050

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.