ReviewSeminars in immunopathology2010
In vivo imaging of infection immunology--4I's!
Review in Seminars in immunopathology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- HIV-1 transmission: modelling and direct visualization in the third dimension.Microscopy (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Recent advances in microscopic techniques for visualizing leukocytes in vivo.F1000Research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As predicted by the red queen hypothesis, microbial pathogens are probably the major reason for the evolution of the immune system (Paterson et al., Nature 464:275-278, 2010). In general, at the population level, i.e., for most of us, most of the time, the immune response to infection is highly effective. However, there remain significant challenges with particularly intransigent organisms or those that are crossing species barriers. Thus, in some cases, efforts to develop new and effective vaccines and drugs have met with limited success. To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, "I keep six honest serving men--they taught me all I know; their names are what, and why, and when and how and where and who". Addressing these key tenets will be key to understanding the interaction between infection and the immune system. This is particularly important, as the early events during induction of an immune response influence the acquisition of effector function and development of memory responses. Our understanding of the interactions of pathogens with the host immune system has largely been derived through in vitro or static in vivo study. This is a significant issue, as the component parts of the immune system do not work in isolation, and their interactions occur in distinct and specialized micro- and macro anatomical locations that can only be assessed in the physiological context, dynamically in vivo. To this end, the increasing availability of genetically manipulable pathogens and high resolution, real-time in vivo imaging over the preceding 5 years has greatly enhanced our ability to understand and evaluate factors involved in host-pathogen interactions in vivo. This article will review the current status of this area, highlight why progress has been faster with some pathogens and tissues (e.g., protozoa and accessible site such as skin), and speculate on what recent developments in biology and imaging will tell us about pathogen-specific immune responses in the future. This will be done by following the chronological development of the infection process from invasion, to recognition, and dissemination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.