Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19691552›Full record

ReviewParasite immunology2009

Fc-receptors and immunity to malaria: from models to vaccines.

R J Pleass

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Parasite immunology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

R J PleassInstitute of Genetics, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. richard.pleass@nottingham.ac.uk

Funding

Medical Research Council G0300145Wellcome Trust 082915Wellcome Trust WT082915MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity and number of antigens (Ags) seen during an immune response has hampered the development of malaria vaccines. Antibodies (Abs) play an important role in immunity to malaria and their passive administration is effective at controlling the disease. Abs represent approximately 25% of all proteins undergoing clinical trials, and these 'smart biologicals' have undergone a major revival with the realization that Abs lie at the interface between innate and adaptive immunity. At least 18 Abs have FDA approval for clinical use and approximately 150 are in clinical trials, the majority for the treatment of cancer, allograft rejection or autoimmune disease. Despite these triumphs none are in development for malaria, principally because they are perceived as being too expensive for a disease mainly afflicting poor and marginalized populations. Although unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that Ab-based prophylaxis will be made available to the millions of people at risk from malaria, they may be incorporated into current vaccine approaches, since Abs act as correlates of protection in studies aimed at defining the best Ags to include in vaccines. Abs may also form the basis for novel vaccination strategies by targeting Ags to appropriate antigen presenting cells. Therefore, to develop the most efficacious vaccines it will be necessary to fully understand which Abs and Fc-receptors (FcRs) are best engaged for a positive outcome.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansMalariaMalaria VaccinesReceptors, FcMalaria VaccinesReceptors, Fc

Identifiers

PMID19691552
PMCPMC3115686

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.