Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12732315›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in biotechnology2003

Plant cell factories and mucosal vaccines.

Amanda M Walmsley, Charles J Arntzen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in biotechnology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use of GFP to investigate expression of plant-derived vaccines.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2009
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Production of recombinant allergens in plants.Phytochemistry reviews : proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe · 2008
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Rice-based mucosal vaccine as a global strategy for cold-chain- and needle-free vaccination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2007
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amanda M WalmsleyDepartment of Plant Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287, USA. amanda.walmsley@asu.edu
Charles J Arntzen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many advances continue to be made in the field of plant-derived vaccines. Plants have been shown capable of expressing a multicomponent vaccine that when orally delivered induces a T-helper cell subset 1 response and enables passive immunization. Furthermore, a plant-derived vaccine has been shown to protect against challenge in the target host. Increased antigen expression levels (up to 4.1% total soluble protein) have been obtained through transformation of the chloroplast genome. In view of these findings, plant-derived vaccines have been proved as valuable commodities to the world's health system; however, before their application, studies need to focus on optimization of immunization strategies and to investigate antigen stability.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantAdministration, OralAnimalsBacterial VaccinesDrug StabilityGenetic EngineeringHumansImmunity, MucosalPlants, Genetically ModifiedRecombinant Fusion ProteinsTransformation, GeneticVaccines, SyntheticViral VaccinesBacterial VaccinesRecombinant Fusion ProteinsVaccines, SyntheticViral Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID12732315
PMCPMC7135315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.