Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21815811›Full record

ReviewOmics : a journal of integrative biology2011

The top five "game changers" in vaccinology: toward rational and directed vaccine development.

Richard B Kennedy, Gregory A Poland

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Omics : a journal of integrative biology, 2011. 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Current Challenges in Vaccinology.Frontiers in immunology · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The future of human DNA vaccines.Journal of biotechnology · 2012
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard B KennedyMayo Vaccine Research Group and Program in Translational Immunovirology and Biodefense, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Gregory A Poland
Mayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the tremendous success of the classical "isolate, inactivate, and inject" approach to vaccine development, new breakthroughs in vaccine research are increasingly reliant on novel approaches that incorporate cutting edge technology and advances in innate and adaptive immunology, microbiology, virology, pathogen biology, genetics, bioinformatics, and many other disciplines in order to: (1) deepen our understanding of the key biological processes that lead to protective immunity, (2) observe vaccine responses on a global, systems level, and (3) directly apply the new knowledge gained to the development of next-generation vaccines with improved safety profiles, enhanced efficacy, and even targeted utility in select populations. Here we highlight five key components foundational to vaccinomics efforts: applied immunogenomics, next generation sequencing and other cutting-edge "omics" technologies, advanced bioinformatics and analysis techniques, and finally, systems biology applied to immune profiling and vaccine responses. We believe these "game changers" will play a critical role in moving us toward the rational and directed development of new vaccines in the 21st century.

Indexed as

VaccinesComputational BiologyGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSystems BiologyVaccines

Identifiers

PMID21815811
PMCPMC3166183
OpenAlexW2068668088

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.