Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22702526›Full record

ReviewFuture microbiology2012

Anaplasma phagocytophilum: deceptively simple or simply deceptive?

Maiara S Severo, Kimberly D Stephens, Michail Kotsyfakis, Joao Hf Pedra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. DifferentiatingInfection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Plasticity in the cell division processes of obligate intracellular bacteria.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  8. Prevalence and Genotyping ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

4 authors.

Maiara S SeveroDepartment of Entomology & Center for Disease Vector Research, 900 University Avenue, University of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Kimberly D Stephens
Michail Kotsyfakis
Joao Hf Pedra

Funding

Rickettsial Immunity During Tick TransmissionR01AI093653 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI PEDRA, JOAO · 2011 to 2015
$1.8M
NIAID NIH HHS NIH R01 AI093653NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI093653
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaplasma phagocytophilum is an obligate intracellular rickettsial pathogen transmitted by ixodid ticks. This bacterium colonizes myeloid and nonmyeloid cells and causes human granulocytic anaplasmosis--an important immunopathological vector-borne disease in the USA, Europe and Asia. Recent studies uncovered novel insights into the mechanisms of A. phagocytophilum pathogenesis and immunity. Here, we provide an overview of the underlying events by which the immune system responds to A. phagocytophilum infection, how this pathogen counteracts host immunity and the contribution of the tick vector for microbial transmission. We also discuss current scientific gaps in the knowledge of A. phagocytophilum biology for the purpose of exchanging research perspectives.

Indexed as

Anaplasma phagocytophilumAnimalsAsiaBiomedical ResearchEhrlichiosisEuropeHumansImmune EvasionTick-Borne DiseasesTicksUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22702526
PMCPMC3397239

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.