ArticleVaccines2025
Targeting Azole-Resistant
Article in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Analyses Reveal Molecular Mechanism in Hybrid Crucian Carp (Carassius cuvieri♀ × Carassius auratus Red var♂) after Gut Infection with Aeromonas hydrophila L3-3.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Perspectives on Vaginal Ecology and Management of Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis: A Narrative Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Active and Passive Immunization of Pan-Fungal Vaccine NXT-2 Reduces Morbidity and Mortality in an Immunosuppressed Murine Model ofVaccines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectives
methodsThe vaccine formulation was tested in a murine model of systemic
resultsFLZ treatment showed weak antifungal activity, high MIC values, and limited biofilm disruption and failed to ensure long-term survival, resulting in 100% mortality by day 40. In contrast, Tuft-lip-WCAg vaccination was well tolerated and conferred complete protection, with no detectable fungal burden by day 40. Vaccinated mice exhibited significantly elevated total antibody titers (166,667 ± 14,434), increased IgG2a levels, and enhanced T cell proliferation (stimulation index: 3.9 ± 0.84). Splenocytes from immunized mice secreted markedly higher levels of IFN-γ (634 ± 128 pg/mL) and IL-4 (582 ± 82 pg/mL), indicating a balanced Th1/Th2 immune response. Tuft-lip-WCAg vaccination also achieved 100% survival and the lowest kidney fungal burden (556 ± 197 CFUs/g).
conclusionsTuft-lip-WCAg formulation is a safe, immunogenic, and highly effective vaccine candidate that offers complete protection against drug-resistant
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.