Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15771570›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of immunology2005

How neutrophils kill microbes.

Anthony W Segal

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of immunology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 698 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
698citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
25.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

698 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,762 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Upregulation of mScience China. Life sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Experimental protothecosis in a murine model.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Early diagnosis of bloodstream infections by Neutrophil-Reactive Intensity (NEUT-RI): a retrospective analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

638 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anthony W SegalCenter for Molecular Medicine, University College London, London WC1E 6JJ, United Kingdom. t.segal@ucl.ac.uk
University College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 067287
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neutrophils provide the first line of defense of the innate immune system by phagocytosing, killing, and digesting bacteria and fungi. Killing was previously believed to be accomplished by oxygen free radicals and other reactive oxygen species generated by the NADPH oxidase, and by oxidized halides produced by myeloperoxidase. We now know this is incorrect. The oxidase pumps electrons into the phagocytic vacuole, thereby inducing a charge across the membrane that must be compensated. The movement of compensating ions produces conditions in the vacuole conducive to microbial killing and digestion by enzymes released into the vacuole from the cytoplasmic granules.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectron TransportHumansImmunity, InnateMicroscopy, ElectronModels, ImmunologicalNADPH OxidasesNeutrophilsPhagocytosisReactive Oxygen SpeciesVacuolesNADPH OxidasesReactive Oxygen Species

Identifiers

PMID15771570
PMCPMC2092448
OpenAlexW2125762027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.