The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Effects of an Escherichia coli J5 Vaccine on Mild Clinical Coliform Mastitis
Open accessAbstract
Vaccination with the J5 bacterin reduced duration of IMI and local signs of clinical mastitis in cows challenged by intramammary infusion with a smooth heterologous strain of E. coli previously shown to cause mild clinical mastitis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
9 of 29 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Vaccination of cows with Escherichia coli (O111:B4) J5 bacterins during the dry period and at calving reduced the incidence of naturally occurring clinical coliform mastitis during early lactation.
“Vaccination of cows with Escherichia coli (0111:B4) J5 bacterins during the dry period and at calving reduced the incidence of naturally occurring clinical coliform mastitis during early lactation (2, 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [2] Gonzales, 1983, Prevention of clinical coliform mastitis in dairy cows by a mutant Escherichia coli vaccine, Can. J. Vet. Res.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [5] Hogan, 1992, Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine, J. Dairy Sci. source
- Premisecitation
Gram-negative bacteria isolated from naturally occurring IMI differ in pathogenicity and virulence to the mammary gland.
“Gram-negative bacteria isolated from naturally occumng IMI differ in pathogenicity and virulence to the mammary gland (3,10).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [3] Hill, 1981, Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow, Res. Vet. Sci. source
- cites [10] Todhunter, 1990, Intramammary challenge of the bovine mammary gland with coliform bacteria during early involution, J. Dairy Sci. source
The Challenge Bacteria section says the strains were isolated from naturally occurring IMI. The Discussion reports that these strains differed in their ability to establish experimental infections, but the tests were confined to mammary glands during early involution. The claim does not retain that condition and describes the difference broadly as pathogenicity and virulence to the mammary gland; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
The intramammary challenge model using E. coli 727 has consistently produced mild clinical coliform mastitis in the current and two previous trials.
“The intramammary challenge model using E. coli 727 has consistently produced mild clinical coliform mastitis in the current and two previous trials (6, 11).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [6] Hogan, 1994, Therapy of experimentally induced coliform mastitis with a Propionibacterium acnes product, J. Dairy Sci. source
The Bacterial Challenge section identifies E. coli 727 as the intramammary challenge strain, and the Results state that all challenged cows developed clinical mastitis. The passages do not characterize the disease as mild or establish that this model produced mild mastitis consistently across two previous trials. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [11] Todhunter, 1991, Intramammary challenge with Escherichia coli following immunization with a curli-producing Escherichia coli, J. Dairy Sci. source
The Bacterial Challenge and Results sections (page unavailable) show that intramammary challenge with E. coli 727 caused clinical mastitis in every cow, with all cows appearing normal after 48 hours. The paper describes the infections as acute and short-lived, rather than explicitly mild, and does not establish that this outcome occurred consistently across the current and two previous trials. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Intramammary challenge with E. coli 487 consistently caused more severe clinical signs of mastitis than did intramammary challenge with E. coli 727.
“Intramarnmary challenge with E. coli 487 (7) consistently caused more severe clinical signs of mastitis than did intramammary challenge with E. coli 727 (6, 11).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites [7] Hogan, 1992, Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. source
- cites [6] Hogan, 1994, Therapy of experimentally induced coliform mastitis with a Propionibacterium acnes product, J. Dairy Sci. source
- cites [11] Todhunter, 1991, Intramammary challenge with Escherichia coli following immunization with a curli-producing Escherichia coli, J. Dairy Sci. source
- Findingown data
BSA returned to prechallenge concentrations on d 3 and 4 for both cows vaccinated with J5 bacterin and cows vaccinated with placebo.
“The BSA returned to prechallenge concentrations on d 3 and 4 for cows vaccinated with J5 bacterin and cows vaccinated with placebo.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingcitation
Bacterial counts in milk of control cows were 103-fold greater in the earlier trial than in milk of control cows in the present study.
“Bacterial counts in milk of control cows were 103-fold greater in the earlier trial (7) than in milk of control cows in the present study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Hogan, 1992, Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. source
- Findingown data
Immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not reduce peak rectal temperature.
“Consequently, immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not reduce peak rectal temperature or affect DMI and milk production in the current trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
BSA concentrations at 7 d postchallenge were greater for controls than for J5 vaccinates (P < .05).
“Concentrations of BSA in whey were greater for controls than for J5 vaccinates at 7 d postchallenge (P < .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
DMI returned to prechallenge levels on d 2 postchallenge.
“The DMI had returned to prechallenge levels on d 2 postchallenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Only 1 cow in the J5 group (5.2%) and 1 cow in the control group (10%) had systemic signs of clinical mastitis including depression, anorexia, and diarrhea.
“Only 1 cow in the group vaccinated with J5 (5.2%) and 1 cow in the control (10%) group had systemic signs of clinical mastitis that included depression, anorexia, and diarrhea.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Maximum number of hours postchallenge that quarters had a clinical score of 4 was greater for placebo (geometric mean 31.6 h) than for J5 vaccinates (geometric mean 17.7 h).
“The maximum number of hours postchallenge that quarters had a clinical score of 4 was greater (P e .05)for cows receiving placebo (geometric mean of 31.6 h) than for J5 vaccinates (geometric mean of 17.7 h).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not affect milk production.
“Consequently, immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not reduce peak rectal temperature or affect DMI and milk production in the current trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bacterial numbers were greater in quarters of cows vaccinated with J5 than in controls at 3, 6, and 9 h postchallenge.
“Bacterial numbers were greater in quarters of cows vaccinated with J5 than in controls at 3, 6, and 9 h postchallenge.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bacterial counts at 48, 72, and 96 h postchallenge were lower in cows vaccinated with J5 than in cows vaccinated with placebo (P < .05).
“Bacterial counts at 48, 72, and 96 h postchallenge were lower in cows vaccinated with J5 than in cows vaccinated with placebo (P e .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bacterial counts in each treatment group were bimodal with peaks at 9 and 24 h postchallenge.
“Bacterial counts in each treatment group were bimodal: peaks were at 9 and 24 h postchallenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not affect DMI.
“Consequently, immunization of cows with J5 bacterin did not reduce peak rectal temperature or affect DMI and milk production in the current trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Percentage of quarters shedding bacteria at 4 d postchallenge was 47% for cows vaccinated with J5 and 100% for controls.
“Percentage of quarters shedding bacteria at 4 d postchallenge was 47% for cows vaccinated with J5 and 100% for controls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Milk production returned to prechallenge levels by 4 d postchallenge.
“Milk production returned to prechallenge levels by 4 d postchallenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Duration of IMI was reduced for cows vaccinated with J5 compared with placebo.
“The geometric mean duration of JMI was 129.8 h for control cows and 79.6 h for cows vaccinated with J5 (P c .OS).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Vaccination with the J5 bacterin reduced duration of M I and local signs of clinical mastitis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Findingown data
Local signs of clinical mastitis were reduced for cows vaccinated with J5 compared with placebo.
“Duration of IMI and local signs of clinical mastitis were reduced for cows vaccinated with J5 compared with those for cows vaccinated with placebo.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · plain
“Corresponding to the clearance of bacteria from milk, clinical signs moderated more rapidly in cows vaccinated with J5 than in control cows.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · plain
- Findingown data
Maximum depression of DMI occurred 1 d postchallenge.
“Maximum depression of DMI occurred 1 d postchallenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Decline in bacterial counts from challenged quarters was accelerated in J5 vaccinates.
“In contrast, the decline in bacterial counts from challenged quarters was accelerated in J5 vaccinates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Each mammary quarter challenged with E. coli 727 developed an IMI and clinical mastitis.
“Each mammary quarter challenged with E. coli 727 developed an IMI and clinical masti-tis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Twenty percent of challenged quarters of control cows still had clots and flakes in milk (clinical score 3) at 7 d postchallenge compared with 5.3% for cows vaccinated with J5.
“Twenty percent of challenged quarters of control cows still had clots and flakes in milk (clinical score of 3) at 7 d postchallenge compared with 5.3% for cows vaccinated with J5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Rectal temperatures returned to prechallenge levels by 24 h postchallenge in both groups.
“Rectal temperatures had returned to prechallenge levels by 24 h postchallenge in both groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Mean milk production decreased approximately 35% on the day following challenge in both experimental groups.
“Mean milk production decreased approximately 35% on the day following chal- lenge in both experimental groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
SCC did not differ between treatments in speed or magnitude of response.
“The SCC did not differ between treatments in speed or magnitude of response (Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
SCC at 7 d postchallenge were greater in control cows than in cows vaccinated with J5 (P < .05).
“However, similar to BSA, SCC at 7 d postchallenge were greater in control cows than in cows vaccinated with J5 (P < .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Intramammary infusion of heterologous strains of E. coli caused clinical mastitis with systemic signs in vaccinated and unvaccinated cows.
“Intramammary infusion of heterologous strains of E. coli caused clinical mastitis with systemic signs in vaccinated and unvaccinated cows (4, 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Experimental challenge models used to test efficacy of E. coli J5 bacterins have not replicated results obtained in clinical field trials.
“Experimental challenge models used to test efficacy of E. coli J5 bacterins have not replicated the results obtained in clinical field trials.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Protection afforded by vaccination with E. coli J5 bacterins appears related to increased antibody to lipopolysaccharide core antigens and enhanced opsonization of Gram-negative bacteria.
“The protection afforded by vaccination with E. coli J5 bacterins appears to be related to increased antibody to lipopolysaccharide core antigens and enhanced opsonization of Gramnegative bacteria (7,12,13).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [7] Hogan, 1992, Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. source
- cites [12] Tyler, 1988, Relationship between serologic recognition of Escherichia coli O111:B4 (J5) and clinical coliform mastitis, Am. J. Vet. Res. source
- cites [13] Tyler, 1990, Immunity targeting common core antigens of Gram-negative bacteria, J. Vet. Intern. Med. source
- Interpretationreasoning
The model used in the current study illustrated the effects of an E. coli J5 bacterin on mild clinical coliform mastitis.
“The model used in the current study illustrated the effects of an E. coli J5 bacterin on mild clinical coliform mastitis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Differences between treatment groups were subtle relative to the prevention of clinical cases afforded by J5 bacterins in natural exposure field trials.
“These differences between treatment groups were subtle relative to the prevention of clinical cases afforded by J5 bacterins in natural exposure field trials.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The virulence of bacteria used to challenge cows may account for some discrepancy between field and experimental challenge trials.
“The virulence of bacteria used to challenge cows may account for some discrepancy between field and experimental challenge trials.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Ninety percent of experimental IMI led to acute clinical mastitis compared with <10% of naturally occurring Gram-negative bacterial IMI.
“Ninety percent of experimental IMI led to acute clinical mastitis compared with <lo% of naturally occurring Gramnegative bacterial IMI (2, 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [2] Gonzales, 1983, Prevention of clinical coliform mastitis in dairy cows by a mutant Escherichia coli vaccine, Can. J. Vet. Res.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [7] Hogan, 1992, Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. source
- Premisecitation
Severity of systemic clinical signs was positively correlated with peak bacterial counts in milk.
“The severity of systemic clinical signs was positively correlated with peak bacterial counts in milk (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Hogan, 1992, Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 vaccine in an experimental challenge trial, J. Dairy Sci. source
- Interpretationreasoning
The model used in the current trial appeared to reflect more accurately the dynamics of naturally occurring coliform IMI and clinical mastitis than the challenge models previously reported.
“The model used in the current trial appeared to reflect more accurately the dynamics of naturally occurring coliform IMI and clinical mastitis than challenge models previously reported (4, 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Discrepancies between the current and previous trial may be attributed to differences in pathogenicity of bacterial strains used for challenge.
“Discrepancies between the current and previous trial may be attributed to differences in pathogenicity of bacterial strains used for challenge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
E. coli used in previous trials were virulent strains that repeatedly resulted in severe clinical mastitis.
“Escherichia coli used in previous trials were virulent strains that repeatedly resulted in severe clinical mastitis (4, 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationUse of an E. coli J5 bacterin did not reduce incidence of IMI at calving, but immunization reduced the percentage of mammary quarters with Gram-negative bacterial IMI that displayed clinical signs.
“The use of an E. coli J5 bacterin did not reduce incidence of IMI at calving, but immunization reduced the percentage of mammary quarters with Gram-negative bacterial IMI that displayed clinical signs (5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Hogan, 1992, Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine, J. Dairy Sci. source
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationAlthough local signs of clinical mastitis were reduced by vaccination with E. coli J5 in the current trial, the use of a Propionibacterium acnes immunostimulant and vaccination with a curli-producing strain of E. coli did not alter the dynamics of IMI and clinical signs following intramammary infusion of E. coli 727.
“Although local signs of clinical mastitis were reduced by vaccination with E. coli J5 in the current trial, the use of a Propionibacterium acnes immunostimulant (6) and vaccination with a curli-producing strain of E. coli (11) did not alter the dynamics of IMI and clinical signs following intramammary infusion of E. coli 727.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checkedIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataBSA concentrations at 7 d postchallenge were greater than prior to challenge in controls but not in J5 vaccinates (P < .05).
“Concentrations of BSA in whey were greater at 7 d postchallenge than prior to challenge in controls but not J5 vaccinates (P < .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataWhey BSA concentrations increased in challenged quarters of all cows by d 1 postchallenge and were greater for control cows than for cows vaccinated with J5 (P < .05).
“Whey concentrations of BSA (Figure 1) increased in challenged quarters of all cows by d 1 postchallenge and were greater for control cows than for cows vaccinated with J5 (P < .05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataMean peak rectal temperatures did not differ between treatments and occurred at 12 h postchallenge in both experimental groups.
“Mean peak rectal temperatures (Figure 4) did not differ between treatments and occurred at 12 h postchallenge in both experimental groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataNinety percent of control cows had a clinical score of 4 at 24 h postchallenge compared with 31.6% of cows vaccinated with J5.
“Ninety percent of control cows had a clinical score of 4 at 24 h postchallenge compared with 31.6% of cows vaccinated with”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataVaccination with the J5 bacterin did not reduce the rate of bacterial growth or peak number of colony-forming units per milliliter of milk.
“Vaccination with the J5 bacterin did not reduce the rate of bacterial growth or peak number of colony-forming units per milliliter of milk (Figure 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningVaccination apparently enhanced host defenses, and bacteria were eliminated from mammary glands without clinical signs being detected.
“Vaccination apparently enhanced host defenses, and bacteria were eliminated from mammary glands without clinical signs being detected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe protection afforded by the E. coli J5 bacterin was again demonstrated to reduce severity and duration of clinical signs of mastitis.
“Although the model used in the current trial appeared to reflect more accurately the dynamics of naturally occurring coliform IMI and clinical mastitis than the challenge models previously reported (4, 7), the protection afforded by the E. coli J5 bacterin was again demonstrated to reduce severity and duration of clinical signs of mastitis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenTreatment codes were not broken until data collection and analyses were completed.
“The treatment codes were not broken until data collection and analyses were completed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataVaccine and placebo were administered in a blinded manner.
“Vaccine and placebo were provided to and administered by the investigators in a blinded manner.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Study design and conductnone givenCows within a block were challenged on the same day.
“Cows within a block were challenged on the same day.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenOnly uninfected quarters were infused.
“Infusions were 4 h after morning milking, and only uninfected quarters were infused.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Titers responsive to immunization were negatively correlated with severity of clinical signs of mastitis following intramammary challenge.
“Titers responsive to immunization were negatively correlated with severity of clinical signs of mastitis following intramammary challenge [33].”
From Coliform mastitis (2003) · cites this paper as [33]
The Results and Discussion report that cows vaccinated with J5 had less severe local clinical signs after intramammary challenge than placebo-treated cows. The Statistical Analyses section lists comparisons of treatment groups, but our copy does not report immunization-responsive titers or a correlation between titers and clinical severity. The claim's titer-specific relationship is therefore unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVaccination reduced the peak bacterial counts in infected quarters, duration of intramammary infections by 25%, and duration of clinical signs of mastitis by 50% compared with unvaccinated cows.
“Vaccination reduced the peak bacterial counts in infected quarters, duration of intramammary infections by 25%, and duration of clinical signs of mastitis by 50% compared with unvaccinated cows [33].”
From Coliform mastitis (2003) · cites this paper as [33]
The Results and Discussion report shorter intramammary infections and local clinical signs in J5-vaccinated cows, but the reported durations imply about a 39% reduction in infection duration (129.8 versus 79.6 hours), not 25%, and about a 44% reduction in the measured period of severe local signs (31.6 versus 17.7 hours). The J5 section explicitly says vaccination did not reduce peak bacterial counts. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Factors influencing the outcome of Escherichia coli mastitis in the dairy cow
Hill, A. W. (1981) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/s0034-5288(18)32532-3 · Cited by 216
Eberhart, R. J., Rp, N., Fhs, N., et al. (1979) · Cited by 112
Prevention of clinical coliform mastitis in dairy cows by a mutant Escherichia coli vaccine.
(1989) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 109
(1979) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(79)83196-3 · Cited by 100
Field trial to determine efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1992) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(92)77741-8 · Cited by 96
Self-citationEfficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 mastitis vaccine in an experimental challenge trial.
Hogan, J. S., Weiss, W. P., Todhunter, D. A., Smith, K. L., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1992) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(92)77777-7 · Cited by 86
Self-citationGilliland, S. E., Speck, M. L., Nauyok, G., & Giesbrecht, F. G. (1978) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(78)83543-7 · Cited by 62
Tyler, J. W., Cullor, J. S., Osburn, B. I., Bushnell, R. B., & Fenwick, B. W. (1988) · American Journal of Veterinary Research · doi:10.2460/ajvr.1988.49.11.1950 · Cited by 44
Immunity targeting common core antigens of Gram-negative bacteria
Tyler, J. W., Cullor, J. S., Spier, S. J., & Smith, B. P. (1990) · Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.1990.tb00870.x · Cited by 33
Hill, A. W. (1991) · Veterinary Research Communications · doi:10.1007/bf00497785 · Cited by 32
Schanbacher, F. L., & Larry Smith, K. (1974) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(74)90029-3 · Cited by 21
Self-citationTodhunter, D. A., Smith, K. L., Hogan, J. S., & Nelson, L. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78230-1 · Cited by 14
Self-citationIntramammary challenge of the bovine mammary gland with coliform bacteria during early involution
Todhunter, D., Smith, K. L., & Hogan, J. S. (1990) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(90)78785-1 · Cited by 12
Self-citationTherapy of experimentally induced coliform mastitis with a Propionibacterium acnes product
Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Todhunter, D. A., & Schoenberger, P. S. (1994) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(94)76974-5 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- SAS® User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. 1985. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A 100-Year Review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention
Ruegg, P. L. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13023 · Cited by 1,019
Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk
Hurley, W. L., & Theil, P. K. (2011) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu3040442 · Cited by 691
“Some protocols include an additional immunization within several days after calving [87,91,92,94], while others also continue immunizations into the first three months of lactation [87,94].”
BackgroundHogan, J., & Larry Smith, K. (2003) · Veterinary Research · doi:10.1051/vetres:2003022 · Cited by 245
Self-citationRole of Dietary Copper in Enhancing Resistance to Escherichia coli Mastitis
Scaletti, R. W., Trammell, D. S., Smith, B. A., & Harmon, R. J. (2003) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73708-4 · Cited by 118
“Daily milk production and DMI were expressed as percentages of means for 7 d before challenge following the formula used by Hogan et al. (1995).”
MethodInfluentialŚliwiński, B., Kreuzer, M., Wettstein, H. ‐., & Machmüller, A. (2002) · Archiv für Tierernaehrung · doi:10.1080/00039420215633 · Cited by 122
Use of systemic disease signs to assess disease severity in dairy cows with acute coliform mastitis
Wenz, J. R., Barrington, G. M., Garry, F. B., et al. (2001) · Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · doi:10.2460/javma.2001.218.567 · Cited by 97
Schepper, S. D., Ketelaere, A. D., Bannerman, D. D., Paape, M. J., Peelman, L. J., & Burvenich, C. (2007) · Veterinary Research · doi:10.1051/vetres:2007044 · Cited by 88
Symposium review: Intramammary infections—Major pathogens and strain-associated complexity
Keane, O. M. (2019) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15326 · Cited by 83
Zaatout, N. (2021) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2021.126960 · Cited by 88
Characterization of specific egg yolk immunoglobulin (IgY) against mastitis-causing Escherichia coli
Zhen, Y., Jin, L., Guo, J. Q., et al. (2008) · Veterinary Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.12.014 · Cited by 80
“Several vaccines are commercially available, such as LYSIGUIN (a vaccine against Staphylococcus aureus mastitis) (Ma et al., 2004) and E. coli O111:B4 mutant strain J5 (a vaccine against E. coli mastitis) (Hogan et al., 1995).”
BackgroundHoe, F. G. H., & Ruegg, P. L. (2005) · Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · doi:10.2460/javma.2005.227.1461 · Cited by 76
Invited review: A critical appraisal of mastitis vaccines for dairy cows
Rainard, P., Gilbert, F. B., Germon, P., et al. (2021) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20434 · Cited by 75
Nutrition and udder health in dairy cows: a review
O'Rourke, D. (2009) · Irish Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1186/2046-0481-62-s4-s15 · Cited by 74
Weiss, W. P., Hogan, J. S., & Smith, K. L. (2004) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73138-0 · Cited by 75
Self-citationVaccines and Diagnostic Methods for Bovine Mastitis: Fact and Fiction
Yancey, R. J. (1999) · Advances in veterinary medicine · doi:10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80020-2 · Cited by 70
Günther, J., Petzl, W., Zerbe, H., Schuberth, H., Koczan, D., Goetze, L., & Seyfert, H. (2012) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-17 · Cited by 69
“coli J5 bacterin as a vaccine consistently reduced the severity of the disease [3,4].”
BackgroundPotential mechanism of action of J5 vaccine in protection against severe bovine coliform mastitis
Dosogne, H., Vangroenweghe, F., & Burvenich, C. (2002) · Veterinary Research · doi:10.1051/vetres:2001001 · Cited by 59
Yeiser, E. E., Leslie, K. E., McGilliard, M. L., & Petersson‐Wolfe, C. S. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-5064 · Cited by 61
“coli 727 was obtained from The Ohio State University and stored at −80°C until needed (Hogan et al., 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRodrigues, N. M. B., Bronzato, G. F., Santiago, G. S., et al. (2016) · Brazilian Journal of Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.bjm.2016.07.025 · Cited by 54
Immunoglobulins in Mammary Secretions
Hurley, W. L., & Theil, P. K. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4714-6_9 · Cited by 49
Moderate Inflammatory Reaction During Experimental Escherichia coli Mastitis in Primiparous Cows
Vangroenweghe, F. A. C. J., Duchateau, L., & Burvenich, C. (2004) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73233-6 · Cited by 48
Zhen, Y., Jin, L.-J., Guo, J. Q., et al. (2008) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03920.x · Cited by 42
“As a result, alternative therapies for mastitis, in particular the widely accepted practice of vaccination, have been developed (Nordhaug et al. 1994a,b; Hogan et al. 1995; Calzolari et al. 1997).”
BackgroundTomita, G. M., Ray, C. H., Nickerson, S. C., Owens, W. E., & Gallo, G. F. (2000) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)75112-5 · Cited by 39
Zimov, J. L., Botheras, N. A., Weiss, W. P., et al. (2011) · American Journal of Veterinary Research · doi:10.2460/ajvr.72.5.620 · Cited by 36
Self-citationEfficacy of Intramammary Immunization with an Escherichia coli J5 Bacterin
Smith, J., Hogan, J. S., & Smith, K. L. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75513-x · Cited by 35
“Postchallenge daily milk production and DMI were expressed as a percentage of means for the 7 d prior to challenge [(b/ a) × 100, where a = mean value for the 7 d prior to challenge, and b = daily value postchallenge] ( 12 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAnimal Reproduction in Veterinary Medicine
Aral, F., Payan‐Carreira, R., & Quaresma, M. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.78921 · Cited by 34
Tomita, G. M., Nickerson, S. C., Owens, W. E., & Wren, B. W. (1998) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(98)75793-5 · Cited by 30
Smith, G., Constable, P. D., & Morin, D. E. (2001) · Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2001.tb02335.x · Cited by 30
Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 Bacterin Administered to Primigravid Heifers
Hogan, J. S., Bogacz, V. L., Aslam, M., & Smith, K. L. (1999) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(99)75312-9 · Cited by 29
“The severity of clinical signs following intramammary infusion of E. coli were related to the peak bacterial count in milk from challenged quarters ( 5 , 6). Enhancing mammary secretion IgG titers specific for E. coli J5 effectively reduced the peak bacteria counts in milk and subsequent clinical signs of mastitis ( 6…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationApproaches to modeling intramammary infections in dairy cattle
Allore, H. G., & Erb, H. N. (1999) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0167-5877(99)00014-8 · Cited by 28
Kester, H., Sorter, D. E., & Hogan, J. S. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8576 · Cited by 27
“…score was recorded on a 5-point scale: 1 = normal milk and normal quarter, 2 = normal quarter but milk was questionable, 3 = normal quarter but abnormal milk, 4 = a swollen quarter and abnormal milk, and 5 = swollen quarter, abnormal milk, and systemic signs of infection (Hogan et al., 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationBolte, J., Zhang, Y., Wente, N., et al. (2020) · Veterinary Sciences · doi:10.3390/vetsci7010010 · Cited by 26
Immunoglobulins in Mammary Secretions
Hurley, W. L. (2003) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8602-3_9 · Cited by 26
Effect of dietary copper source on response to coliform mastitis in dairy cows
Scaletti, R. W., & Harmon, R. J. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4435 · Cited by 24
Paulin-Curlee, G. G., Sreevatsan, S., Singer, R. S., Isaacson, R. E., Reneau, J. K., Bey, R., & Foster, D. N. (2008) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0479 · Cited by 24
Steele, N. M., Swartz, T. H., Enger, K. M., Schramm, H. H., Cockrum, R., Lacy-Hulbert, S. J., White, R. R., Hogan, J. S., & Petersson‐Wolfe, C. S. (2019) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-16549 · Cited by 22
Self-citationGurjar, A. A., Klaessig, S., Salmon, S. A., Yancey, R. J., & Schukken, Y. H. (2013) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6456 · Cited by 22
Morin, D. E., Constable, P. D., & McCoy, G. C. (1998) · Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · doi:10.2460/javma.1998.212.09.1423 · Cited by 19
α-Tocopherol Concentrations in Milk and Plasma During Clinical Escherichia coli Mastitis
Hogan, J. S., Weiss, W. P., Smith, K. L., et al. (1996) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(96)76335-x · Cited by 18
Self-citationHit ‘em Where It Hurts: Gram-Negative Bacterial Lipopolysaccharide as a Vaccine Target
Cross, A. S. (2023) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00045-22 · Cited by 19
“Anti-core LPS vaccines have been used routinely on dairy farms to reduce devastating infections (J5-based Bacterin [326] and S. minnesota Re-based ENDOVAC).”
BackgroundHan, S., Yu, H., Yang, F., Qiao, S., & He, P. (2019) · Food and Agricultural Immunology · doi:10.1080/09540105.2019.1581732 · Cited by 16
“Several vaccines are commercially available, such as E. coli (E. coli) O111: B4 mutant strain J5 (Hogan et al., 1995).”
BackgroundEvaluating the Effectiveness of Mastitis Vaccines
Ruegg, P. L., & Vaccines, M. (2001) · Cited by 15
Morimoto, K., Kanda, N., Shinde, S., & Isobe, N. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5498 · Cited by 14
“These acute-phase reactions are provided by innate immunity, which is considered to lack specific memory (Kurtz, 2005); however, E. coli J5 vaccine has been reported to reduce mastitis severity in cows with experimentally induced mastitis (Hogan et al., 1992, 1995; Wilson et al., 2007).”
BackgroundDego, O. K. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.94227 · Cited by 16
Scott, H. M., Sargeant, J. M., Ireland, M. J., et al. (1998) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(98)75765-0 · Cited by 13
Pomeroy, B., Gurjar, A., Sipka, A. S., Klaessig, S., Salmon, S. A., Quesnell, R. R., & Schukken, Y. H. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11149 · Cited by 10
Effects of Adjuvants on Safety and Efficacy of an Escherichia coli J5 Bacterin
Hogan, J. S., Cannon, V. B., Smith, K. L., Rinehart, C. L., & Miller, S. (2005) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)72715-6 · Cited by 10
“Oil-in-water adjuvants were used in E. coli J5 bacterins previously shown to be efficacious (Gonzales et al., 1983; Hogan et al., 1992a, b).”
MethodResultSelf-citationPetersson‐Wolfe, C. S., Wolf, S. L., & Hogan, J. S. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0079 · Cited by 8
“However, rate of replication and maximum number of bacteria per milliliter of secretion before or during the neutrophil response were positively associated with the severity of mastitis (Hogan et al., 1995; Bannerman et al., 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationRodrigues, R. R., Motta, J. F., Ferreira, M. R. A., Moreira, C., Alves, M. L. F., Costa, A. V., Bilhalva, M. A., Donassolo, R. A., Galvão, C. C., Martins, F. M. S., et al. (2023) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2023.106269 · Cited by 7
Immune response during the onset of coliform mastitis in dairy cows vaccinated with STARTVAC ®
Kawai, K., Kondo, Y., Shinozuka, Y., Kawata, R., Kaneko, S., Iwano, H., Enokidani, M., Watanabe, A., Purba, F. Y., Isobe, N., et al. (2021) · Animal Science Journal · doi:10.1111/asj.13502 · Cited by 7
Majumder, S., Eckersall, P. D., & George, S. (2023) · ACS Agricultural Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00066 · Cited by 6
Evaluation of udder firmness by palpation and a dynamometer
Rees, A., Fischer‐Tenhagen, C., & Heuwieser, W. (2014) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7424 · Cited by 6
“Two 5-point palpation scoring systems have been developed to describe the severity of symptoms (Petrovski et al., 2011) or the clinical status of the quarters (Hogan et al., 1995; Scaletti and Harmon, 2012).”
BackgroundMethodControl and Prevention of Mastitis: Part Two
Dego, O. K. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.93484 · Cited by 5
“[47] Hogan JS, Weiss WP, Smith KL, Todhunter DA, Schoenberger PS, Sordillo LM.”
BackgroundImmune suppression in cattle: contributors and consequences.
MarcusEJr, K., JuliaF, R., & JohnD, N. (2009) · Annual Meeting - National Mastitis Council, Inc. · Cited by 5
Molina, L. R., Gentilini, M. B., Carvalho, A. Ú., Filho, E. J. F., Moreira, G. H. F. A., Moreira, L. P. V., & Gonçalves, R. L. (2013) · Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira · doi:10.1590/s0100-736x2013000300003 · Cited by 4
Maia, P. V., Molina, L. R., Filho, E. J. F., Gonçalves, R. L., Moreira, L. P. V., & Carvalho, A. Ú. (2013) · Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia · doi:10.1590/s0102-09352013000500014 · Cited by 3
A pilot study of an anti-endotoxin Ig-enriched bovine colostrum to prevent experimental sepsis
Cross, A. S., Opal, S. M., Palardy, J. E., et al. (2021) · Innate Immunity · doi:10.1177/17534259211007538 · Cited by 3
“The whole cell J5 bacterium vaccine has been formulated and used for the prevention of bovine mastitis for decades in veterinary medicine.(30) Initial clinical trials with J5 antisera or similarly anti-LPS-enriched plasma preparations given as passive immunotherapy for septic patients caused by Gram-negative pathogens…”
Subspecies distribution and virulence factors of Streptococcus uberis
Tomita, T. (2011) · RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · doi:10.25439/rmt.27582636 · Cited by 3
Bertens, C. A., Compart, D. M. P., Stoffel, C. M., Hogan, N., Facciuolo, A., & Penner, G. B. (2025) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2025-27602 · Cited by 3
Rivas, A. L., Deshler, J. D., Quimby, F. W., Mohammed, H. O., Wilson, D. J., González, R. N., Lein, D. H., & Bruso, P. (1998) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02458378 · Cited by 2
Characterisation of Streptococcus uberis from bovine milk
Abureema, S. F. (2013) · RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · doi:10.25439/rmt.27333309 · Cited by 2
Compost Bedded Pack Barns: Management Practices and Economic Implications
Black, R. A. (2013) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · Cited by 2
Bio-economic modeling of bovine intramammary infections
Halasa, T. (2009) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · Cited by 2
Gentilini, M. B., Molina, L. R., Filho, E. J. F., et al. (2013) · Ciência Rural · doi:10.1590/s0103-84782013001000018 · Cited by 1
“Diversos estudos têm verifi cado redução na ocorrência de casos clínicos em vacas vacinadas, comparadas às não vacinadas, em cerca de 80% (GONZÁLEZ et al., 1989), 70% (CULLOR, 1991), 75% (HOGAN et al., 1995) e 66% (GENTILINI et al., 2013).”
BackgroundRethinking Coliform Vaccine Programs
Burton, J. L., & Erskine, R. J. (2020) · American Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · doi:10.21423/aabppro20025015 · Cited by 1
55. Potential improvement of cheese safety by vaccination of dairy cows: a focus on anaflatoxin B 1
Giovati, L., Conti, S., Magliani, W., et al. (2013) · doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-7660-0_55
“The efficacy of these vaccines has been demonstrated in both experimental challenge and field trials in commercial dairy herds and some dairy farmers routinely use vaccination against mastitis pathogens as a control strategy (Hogan et al., 1995).”
BackgroundEffect of Trace Mineral Amount and Source on Aspects of Immune Function in Dairy Cows
Gentile, D. (2008) · eCommons (Cornell University)
DEVELOPMENT OF ROUGH MUTANT E. COLI VACCINE AGAINST COLIFORM MASTITIS
Selvaraj, R. K., Shoba, K., Daniel, N., et al. (2012) · Indian journal of veterinary and animal sciences research. · doi:10.56093/ijvasr.v9i1.154084
55. Potential improvement of cheese safety by vaccination of dairy cows: a focus on anaflatoxin B1
Giovati, L., Conti, S., Magliani, W., et al. (2013) · Wageningen Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-766-0_55
Baştan, A., Salar, S., & Özen, D. (2017) · Eurasian journal of veterinary sciences · doi:10.15312/eurasianjvetsci.2017.161
“It was reported that vaccination against mastitis could cause positive effects like a reduction in duration and symptoms of coliforms mastitis (Hogan et al 1994; Deluyker et al 2005; Wilson et al 2007), intramammary infection rate (Nordhaugh et al 1994) and somatic cell counts (Leitner et al 2003).”
BackgroundTreatment of Clinical Mastitis
Morin, D. E. (1999) · American Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · doi:10.21423/aabppro19995449
55. Potential improvement of cheese safety by vaccination of dairy cows: a focus on anaflatoxin B1
Giovati, L., Conti, S., Magliani, W., et al. (2014) · Wageningen Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-766-0.055
Li, X., Tian, C., Han, H., et al. (2022) · Zoonoses · doi:10.15212/zoonoses-2022-0039
“The immunization regime of the SP01-adjuvanted inactivated Z9 vaccine, including the dosage and inoculation times, was in accordance with that of the J5 vaccine [26,36,39,44].”
BackgroundResultSoliman, R., Sayed, R. H., Mahmoud, H., et al. (2022) · Journal of Animal Health and Production · doi:10.17582/journal.jahp/2023/11.2.99.108
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogan, J. S., Weiss, W. P., Smith, K. L., Todhunter, D. A., Schoenberger, P. S., & Sordillo, L. M.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 285-290
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161831645
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ohio State University
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Milk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Escherichia coli research studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal health and immunology
- Keywords
- coliform mastitis, bovine mastitis, heterologous strains, bacterin, somatic cell count, milk bacterial count, dairy cattle, vaccine efficacy
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Topical, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Bacterial Vaccines, Body Temperature, Cattle, Escherichia coli, Escherichia coli Infections, Female, Mastitis, Bovine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
