ArticleLung1995
Lymphocyte subsets in bronchoalveolar lavage after exposure to Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in pigs previously immunized orally or by aerosol.
Article in Lung, 1995. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence for a common mucosal immune system in the pig.Molecular immunology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Young pigs were immunized with the lung-pathogenic bacterium Actinobacillus (Haemophilus) pleuropneumoniae by aerosol or orally using viable and inactivated bacteria. The cellular changes in the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) were studied in repeated lavages after the pigs were infected with live bacteria. The nucleated cells in the BAL were differentiated and lymphocyte subsets determined. There were no major differences between the two routes of immunization or between viable and inactivated bacteria. The immunization induced an increase in all lymphocyte subsets studied and in the appearance of plasma cells and lymphoid blasts. The infection did not cause a further increase except in granulocytes. The lack of a booster-type increase in lymphocytes in the BAL might indicate a different immunologic reaction of the lung or that lymphocytes of the BAL do not represent lung lymphocytes in general. The protective effect of the immunization might be deduced from the increase in lymphocytes after immunization but not from the reaction pattern after infection.
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.