ArticleVaccines2022
Iron Acquisition Proteins of
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Exploring aggregation genes in aJournal of bacteriology · 2025Article
- Host-mimicking conditions promoteFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Integration of immunoinformatics and cheminformatics to design and evaluate a multitope vaccine againstFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMETHODOLOGY: A "Reverse Vaccinology" approach was employed in the current study. Expression levels of 37 IAPs in various types of PA infections were analyzed in seven previously published studies. The IAP vaccine candidate was selected based on multiple criteria, including a high level of expression, high antigenicity, solubility, and conservation among PA strains, utilizing suitable bioinformatics analysis tools. The selected IAP candidate was recombinantly expressed in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HasAp antigen met all the in silico selection criteria, being highly antigenic, soluble, and conserved. In addition, it was the most highly expressed IAP in terms of average fold change compared to control. Although HasAp did excel in the in silico evaluation, subcutaneous immunization with recombinant HasAp alone or recombinant HasAp plus NAL (HasAP-NAL) did not provide the expected protection compared to controls. Immunized mice showed a low IgG2a/IgG1 ratio, indicating a T-helper type 2 (Th2)-oriented immune response that is suboptimal for protection against PA infections. Surprisingly, the bacterial count in livers of both NAL- and HasAp-NAL-immunized mice was significantly lower than the count in the HasAp and saline groups. The same trend was observed in kidneys and lungs obtained from these groups, although the difference was not significant. Such protection could be attributed to the enhancement of innate immunity by NAL.
conclusionsWe provided a detailed in silico analysis of IAPs of PA followed by in vivo evaluation of the best IAP, HasAp. Despite the promising in silico results, HasAp did not provide the anticipated vaccine efficacy. HasAp should be further evaluated as a vaccine candidate through varying the immunization regimens, models of infection, and immunoadjuvants. Combination with other IAPs might also improve vaccination efficacy. We also shed light on several highly expressed promising IAPs whose efficacy as vaccine candidates is worthy of further investigation.
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.