Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.
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
13 authors.
Muhammad Waqqas HasanMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8560-7714
Javaid Ali GadahiMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6006-1954
Muhammad HaseebMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2587-0171
Qiangqiang WangMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Muhammad EhsanMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5314-5869
Shakeel Ahmad LakhoMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4777-5973
Ali HaiderMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Tahir AleemMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-2777
Mingmin LuMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7343-7815
Ruofeng YanMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Xiaokai SongMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Xiangrui LiMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7143-6827
Lixin XuMOE Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1458-3676
Funding
the National Natural Science Foundation of China 31872464
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
background
methodsFifteen goats were randomly divided into three groups. The experimental group received two doses of the PLGA encapsulated rHcARF1 (rHcARF1-PLGA) nanovaccine on days 0 and 14. Fourteen days after the second immunization, both the experimental and positive control groups were challenged with 8000 infective larvae (L3) of
resultsThe results showed that the experimental group had significantly higher levels of sera IgG, IgA, and IgE antibodies, as well as increased concentrations of cytokines, such as IL-4, IL-9, IL-17, and TGF-β, compared to the negative control group after immunization. Following the L3 challenge, the experimental group exhibited a 47.5% reduction in mean eggs per gram of feces (EPG) and a 55.7% reduction in worm burden as compared to the positive control group.
conclusionsThese findings indicate that the nanovaccine expressing rHcARF1 offers significant protective efficacy against
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.
Partial Protection of Goats against · full record | OpenQuestion