↓ Skip to main content

A Vaccine Therapy for Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis Promoted Significant Improvement of Clinical and Immune Status with Reduction in Parasite Burden

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Vaccine Therapy for Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis Promoted Significant Improvement of Clinical and Immune Status with Reduction in Parasite Burden
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Mendes Roatt, Rodrigo Dian de Oliveira Aguiar-Soares, Levi Eduardo Soares Reis, Jamille Mirelle de Oliveira Cardoso, Fernando Augusto Siqueira Mathias, Rory Cristiane Fortes de Brito, Sydnei Magno da Silva, Nelder De Figueiredo Gontijo, Sidney de Almeida Ferreira, Jesus G. Valenzuela, Rodrigo Corrêa-Oliveira, Rodolfo Cordeiro Giunchetti, Alexandre Barbosa Reis

Abstract

Herein, we evaluated the treatment strategy employing a therapeutic heterologous vaccine composed of antigens of Leishmania braziliensis associated with MPL adjuvant (LBMPL vaccine) for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in symptomatic dogs naturally infected by Leishmania infantum. Sixteen dogs received immunotherapy with MPL adjuvant (n = 6) or with a vaccine composed of antigens of L. braziliensis associated with MPL (LBMPL vaccine therapy, n = 10). Dogs were submitted to an immunotherapeutic scheme consisting of 3 series composed of 10 subcutaneous doses with 10-day interval between each series. The animals were evaluated before (T0) and 90 days after treatment (T90) for their biochemical/hematological, immunological, clinical, and parasitological variables. Our major results showed that the vaccine therapy with LBMPL was able to restore and normalize main biochemical (urea, AST, ALP, and bilirubin) and hematological (erythrocytes, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and platelets) parameters. In addition, in an ex vivo analysis using flow cytometry, dogs treated with LBMPL vaccine showed increased CD3(+) T lymphocytes and their subpopulations (TCD4(+) and TCD8(+)), reduction of CD21(+) B lymphocytes, increased NK cells (CD5(-)CD16(+)) and CD14(+) monocytes. Under in vitro conditions, the animals developed a strong antigen-specific lymphoproliferation mainly by TCD4(+) and TCD8(+) cells; increasing in both TCD4(+)IFN-γ(+) and TCD8(+)IFN-γ(+) as well as reduction of TCD4(+)IL-4(+) and TCD8(+)IL-4(+) lymphocytes with an increased production of TNF-α and reduced levels of IL-10. Concerning the clinical signs of canine visceral leishmaniasis, the animals showed an important reduction in the number and intensity of the disease signs; increase body weight as well as reduction of splenomegaly. In addition, the LBMPL immunotherapy also promoted a reduction in parasite burden assessed by real-time PCR. In the bone marrow, we observed seven times less parasites in LBMPL animals compared with MPL group. The skin tissue showed a reduction in parasite burden in LBMPL dogs 127.5 times higher than MPL. As expected, with skin parasite reduction promoted by immunotherapy, we observed a blocking transmission to sand flies in LBMPL dogs with only three positive dogs after xenodiagnosis. The results obtained in this study highlighted the strong potential for the use of this heterologous vaccine therapy as an important strategy for VL treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 24 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 33 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,722,429
of 26,311,549 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#14,562
of 32,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,882
of 324,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#261
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,311,549 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.