Show simple item record

Meta-analysis of variables affecting mouse protection efficacy of whole organism Brucella vaccines and vaccine candidates

dc.contributor.authorTodd, Thomas E
dc.contributor.authorTibi, Omar
dc.contributor.authorLin, Yu
dc.contributor.authorSayers, Samantha
dc.contributor.authorBronner, Denise N
dc.contributor.authorXiang, Zuoshuang
dc.contributor.authorHe, Yongqun
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-07T17:31:49Z
dc.date.available2015-08-07T17:31:49Z
dc.date.issued2013-04-17
dc.identifier.citationBMC Bioinformatics. 2013 Apr 17;14(Suppl 6):S3
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/112497en_US
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Vaccine protection investigation includes three processes: vaccination, pathogen challenge, and vaccine protection efficacy assessment. Many variables can affect the results of vaccine protection. Brucella, a genus of facultative intracellular bacteria, is the etiologic agent of brucellosis in humans and multiple animal species. Extensive research has been conducted in developing effective live attenuated Brucella vaccines. We hypothesized that some variables play a more important role than others in determining vaccine protective efficacy. Using Brucella vaccines and vaccine candidates as study models, this hypothesis was tested by meta-analysis of Brucella vaccine studies reported in the literature. Results Nineteen variables related to vaccine-induced protection of mice against infection with virulent brucellae were selected based on modeling investigation of the vaccine protection processes. The variable "vaccine protection efficacy" was set as a dependent variable while the other eighteen were set as independent variables. Discrete or continuous values were collected from papers for each variable of each data set. In total, 401 experimental groups were manually annotated from 74 peer-reviewed publications containing mouse protection data for live attenuated Brucella vaccines or vaccine candidates. Our ANOVA analysis indicated that nine variables contributed significantly (P-value < 0.05) to Brucella vaccine protection efficacy: vaccine strain, vaccination host (mouse) strain, vaccination dose, vaccination route, challenge pathogen strain, challenge route, challenge-killing interval, colony forming units (CFUs) in mouse spleen, and CFU reduction compared to control group. The other 10 variables (e.g., mouse age, vaccination-challenge interval, and challenge dose) were not found to be statistically significant (P-value > 0.05). The protection level of RB51 was sacrificed when the values of several variables (e.g., vaccination route, vaccine viability, and challenge pathogen strain) change. It is suggestive that it is difficult to protect against aerosol challenge. Somewhat counter-intuitively, our results indicate that intraperitoneal and subcutaneous vaccinations are much more effective to protect against aerosol Brucella challenge than intranasal vaccination. Conclusions Literature meta-analysis identified variables that significantly contribute to Brucella vaccine protection efficacy. The results obtained provide critical information for rational vaccine study design. Literature meta-analysis is generic and can be applied to analyze variables critical for vaccine protection against other infectious diseases.
dc.titleMeta-analysis of variables affecting mouse protection efficacy of whole organism Brucella vaccines and vaccine candidates
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112497/1/12859_2013_Article_5801.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1471-2105-14-S6-S3en_US
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderTodd et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.date.updated2015-08-07T17:31:49Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.