ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2026
Evaluation of the Prevention and Control Efficacy of Different Immunization Regimens Against Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus.
Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 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.
- Evaluation of the Prevention and Control Efficacy of Different Immunization Regimens Against Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) is an infectious pathogen that induces severe injury to the small intestinal epithelium of pigs. Pigs of all ages are susceptible to infection, which typically presents with watery diarrhea as the main clinical manifestation. In neonatal piglets, PEDV infection results in nearly 100% morbidity and mortality rates exceeding 80%. Therefore, selecting an appropriate immunization regimen for pregnant sows is particularly critical, as effective maternal vaccination enables the transfer of robust passive immunity to neonatal piglets, thereby protecting them against PEDV infection. In this study, three vaccination regimens (inactivated vaccine [IV] + IV, attenuated live vaccine [AV] + IV, and mRNA vaccine [MV] + MV) were used to immunize pregnant sows, and the passive immune protection conferred to neonatal piglets was subsequently evaluated. The results showed that piglets in the control group failed to acquire passive immune protection, with all piglets (5/5) developing diarrhea after challenge. The AV + IV regimen induced strong cellular immune responses and moderate humoral immunity, resulting in complete passive protection of piglets (5/5) following challenge, with only low levels of PEDV RNA detected in rectal swabs, which persisted for no more than 7 days. The IV + IV regimen elicited optimal humoral immune response but the weakest cellular immunity, whereas the MV + MV regimen induced moderate levels of both humoral and cellular immunity; piglets in both groups achieved partial passive protection (4/5), and relatively higher PEDV RNA loads, although still lower than those observed in the control group, were persistently detected in feces for up to 14 days. Collectively, the comparative analysis of passive immune protection conferred by the three immunization regimens indicated that the AV + IV strategy achieved superior protective efficacy, yielding superior outcomes compared with the MV + MV and IV + IV regimens. As MVs represent a novel and rapidly evolving platform for veterinary biologics, further technological innovation and systematic optimization are likely to enhance their immunogenicity and corresponding protective potency in subsequent studies.
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.