Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19149776›Full record

SynthesisParasite immunology2009

Meta-analysis of immune epitope data for all Plasmodia: overview and applications for malarial immunobiology and vaccine-related issues.

K Vaughan, M Blythe, J Greenbaum, Q Zhang, B Peters, D L Doolan, A Sette

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Parasite immunology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Comprehensive Review of HumanFrontiers in immunology · 2019
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

K VaughanLa Jolla Institute of Allergy and Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. kvaughan@liai.org
M Blythe
J Greenbaum
Q Zhang
B Peters
D L Doolan
A Sette

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS HHSH266200400006CPHS HHS HHSN26620040006C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a comprehensive meta-analysis of more than 500 references, describing nearly 5000 unique B cell and T cell epitopes derived from the Plasmodium genus, and detailing thousands of immunological assays. This is the first inventory of epitope data related to malaria-specific immunology, plasmodial pathogenesis, and vaccine performance. The survey included host and pathogen species distribution of epitopes, the number of antibody vs. CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell epitopes, the genomic distribution of recognized epitopes, variance among epitopes from different parasite strains, and the characterization of protective epitopes and of epitopes associated with parasite evasion of the host immune response. The results identify knowledge gaps and areas for further investigation. This information has relevance to issues, such as the identification of epitopes and antigens associated with protective immunity, the design and development of candidate malaria vaccines, and characterization of immune response to strain polymorphisms.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceAnimalsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigenic VariationAntigens, ProtozoanEpitopes, B-LymphocyteEpitopes, T-LymphocyteHumansImmunity, ActiveLife Cycle StagesMalariaMalaria VaccinesMiceMolecular Sequence DataPlasmodiumRabbitsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanEpitopes, B-LymphocyteEpitopes, T-LymphocyteMalaria Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID19149776
PMCPMC3327129

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.