ArticlePorcine health management2024
Can immunocrit be used as a monitoring tool for swine vaccination and infection studies?
Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe immunocrit is a cost-effective and straightforward technique traditionally used to assess passive immunity transfer to newborn piglets. However, it has not been previously used for monitoring the effect of vaccination and/or infections. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the immunocrit technique as an immunological monitoring tool in a vaccination and challenge scenario, using porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) as pathogen model. The immunocrit ratio was monitored in PCV-2 vaccinated (V) and non-vaccinated (NV) 3-week-old piglets (study day 0, SD0) that were subsequently challenged with this virus at SD21 and followed up to SD42. Additional techniques (PCV-2 IgG ELISA, optical refractometry, and proteinogram) were performed to further characterize the results of the immunocrit analysis.
resultsImmunocrit, γ-globulin concentration and PCV-2 S/P values followed similar dynamics: descending after PCV-2 vaccination but ascending after an experimental PCV-2 inoculation. However, statistically significant differences between V and NV animals were only found with the PCV-2 ELISA. In this case, V animals had significantly higher (p < 0.05) S/P values (S/P ratio = 0.74) than NV (S/P ratio = 0.39) pigs only after challenge at SD42. On the other hand, serum total protein obtained by refractometer (STPr) were maintained from SD0 to SD21 and increased in both groups from SD21 to SD42. Correlations between techniques were low to moderate, being the most robust ones found between immunocrit and optical refractometry (ρ = 0.41) and immunocrit with γ-globulins (ρ = 0.39). In a subset of sera, the proteinogram technique was applied to the whole serum and the supernatant of the immunocrit, with the objective to characterize indirectly the immunocrit fraction. The latter one included all protein types detectable through the proteinogram, with percentages varying between 64.3% (γ-globulins) and 82% (β-globulins).
conclusionThe immunocrit technique represented a fraction of the total serum proteins, with low to moderate correlation with all the complementary techniques measured in this study. Its determination at different time points did not allow monitoring the effect of vaccination and/or infection using PCV-2 as a pathogen model.
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.