ArticleVaccines2024
Comparative Efficacy of Parenteral and Mucosal Recombinant Probiotic Vaccines Against SARS-CoV-2 and
Article in Vaccines, 2024. 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.
- Advances in Feline Panleukopenia Virus Vaccines: Immunological Mechanisms, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Viruses · 2026Review
- The Effects of Past COVID-19 and Vaccination on Antibody Levels, Cellular Immunity, and Cytokine Production by Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Spermine-Functionalized Multiepitope Signaling Peptide Nanovaccine to Stimulate the Systemic Immunity against Pneumonia.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2025Article
- Carmofur Exhibits Antimicrobial Activity AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Distinct humoral responses induced by heterologous versus homologous prime-boost immunization strategies in early life.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accumulation of specific IgG antibodies in blood serum is considered a key criterion for the effectiveness of vaccination. For several vaccine-preventable infections, quantitative indicators of the humoral response have been established, which, when reached, provide a high probability of protection against infection. The presence of such a formal correlate of vaccine effectiveness is crucial, for example, in organizing preventive measures and validating newly developed vaccines. However, can effective protection against infection occur when the level of serum antibodies is lower than that provided by parenteral vaccination? Will protection be sufficient if the same vaccine antigen is administered via mucosal membranes without achieving high levels of specific IgG circulating in the blood?
methodsIn this study, we compared the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of parenteral and mucosal forms of vaccines in experimental animals, targeting infections caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and
resultsBoth models demonstrated significant differences in the immunogenicity of parenteral and oral vaccine antigens, but comparable protective efficacy.
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.