Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16096015›Full record

ReviewAdvances in genetics2005

DNA vaccine.

Zhengrong Cui

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Extracellular vesicles are key mediators for direct antigen transport to draining lymph nodes.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. RecombinantFuture microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. A comprehensive comparison of DNA and RNA vaccines.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Zhengrong CuiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.
Oregon State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The DNA vaccine has proven to be one of the most promising applications in the field of gene therapy. Due to its unique ability to readily induce humoral as well as cellular immune responses, it attracted great interest when the concept was first confirmed in the early 1990s. After thousands of articles related to the DNA vaccine were published, scientists began to realize that although the DNA vaccine is very effective in small animal models, its effectiveness in recent clinical trails is rather disappointing. Therefore, current effort has been shifted to understanding the different performance of the DNA vaccine in mouse and large animal models and on how to transfer the success of the DNA vaccine in small animals to large animals and humans.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAIDS VaccinesAntibody FormationAutoimmunityCancer VaccinesClinical Trials as TopicHepatitis B VaccinesHumansImmune ToleranceImmunity, CellularMalaria VaccinesOligodeoxyribonucleotidesPapillomaviridaePlasmidsSafetyVaccines, DNAAdjuvants, ImmunologicAIDS VaccinesCancer VaccinesCPG-oligonucleotideHepatitis B VaccinesMalaria VaccinesOligodeoxyribonucleotidesVaccines, DNAViral Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID16096015
PMCPMC7119308
OpenAlexW4205778255

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.