Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22440562›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in virology2011

Innate immunity modulation in virus entry.

Mathias Faure, Chantal Rabourdin-Combe

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in virology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Innate immunity to adenovirus.Human gene therapy · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mathias FaureUniversité de Lyon, France. mathias.faure@inserm.fr
Chantal Rabourdin-Combe
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Entry into a cell submits viruses to detection by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) leading to an early innate anti-viral response. Several viruses evolved strategies to avoid or subvert PRR recognition at the step of virus entry to promote infection. Whereas viruses mostly escape from soluble PRR detection, endocytic/phagocytic PRRs, such as the mannose receptor or DC-SIGN, are commonly used for virus entry. Moreover, virion-incorporated proteins may also offer viruses a way to dampen anti-viral innate immunity upon virus entry, and entering viruses might usurp autophagy to improve their own infectivity.

Indexed as

Immunity, InnateVirus InternalizationAnimalsHumansReceptors, Pattern RecognitionReceptors, VirusViral ProteinsVirus DiseasesVirusesReceptors, Pattern RecognitionReceptors, VirusViral Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22440562
PMCPMC7102793
OpenAlexW2071824628

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.