ArticleScientific reports2026
Protective immunity in hamsters from an oral Nipah vaccine correlates with pseudovirus neutralising antibody titre.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nipah virus (NiV) is a deadly zoonotic pathogen with a high mortality rate and no approved vaccines, creating an urgent need for new solutions. We developed a novel, thermostable, orally administered NiV vaccine using a human serotype 5 adenovirus (AdHu5) vector to express NiV glycoproteins G and F. This vaccine, delivered via an enteric-coated capsule using the OraPro platform, eliminates the cold chain and allows for self-administration. In a Syrian hamster model, a prime-and-pull strategy—an intramuscular prime followed by an oral booster—provided 100% protection against a lethal NiV challenge, significantly outperforming intramuscular administration alone, which offered only 66% protection. The oral booster also led to higher serum neutralizing antibody titres while reducing anti-vector immunity, potentially enabling repeated use of the same vector. Histopathological analysis showed superior protection in orally boosted animals, with minimal lung lesions. This study highlights the potential of oral vaccines for addressing emerging infectious diseases.
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.