A Comparison of Toll-Like Receptor 5 and 21 Ligands as Adjuvants for a Formaldehyde Inactivated H9N2 Avian Influenza Virus Vaccine in Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low pathogenic avian influenza virus (AIV) infection in chickens can result in economic losses and has impacts on human health. Poultry vaccination is a tool that can be used to decrease infection and transmission of AIVs. Prior research has demonstrated that Toll-like receptor (TLR) ligands can act as vaccine adjuvants and their addition to inactivated AIV vaccines can enhance immune responses elicited in chickens. The objective of this study was to compare the adjuvant capabilities of TLR5 ligand (flagellin) and TLR21 ligand (CpG ODN 2007) administered either alone or in combination with an intramuscular formaldehyde inactivated H9N2 whole virus vaccine in chickens. Along with the inactivated virus, chickens were administered either a single dose of CpG ODN 2007 (2 or 10 μg), flagellin (0.4 or 2 μg), or a combination of both ligands. An additional group received AddaVax™, an oil emulsion style adjuvant. Chickens were vaccinated twice and serum and lachrymal samples were collected weekly following the primary vaccination, and antibody-mediated immune responses were quantified. Results showed that vaccines containing CpG ODN 2007 induce significantly greater systemic and lachrymal antibody responses than vaccines containing flagellin or AddaVax. Combinations of flagellin and CpG ODN 2007 did not demonstrate inhibitory, additive, or synergistic effects on systemic or lachrymal antibody-mediated immune responses. Additionally, for both flagellin and CpG ODN 2007, a fivefold higher dose of each did not induce significantly higher antibody-mediated immune responses compared with the lesser dose. Future studies should examine the induction of cell-mediated immune responses when flagellin, CpG ODN 2007, or other TLR ligands are administered either alone or combined as adjuvants for inactivated H9N2 AIV vaccines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".