Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22920050›Full record

ReviewRetrovirology2012

Genome-wide association studies on HIV susceptibility, pathogenesis and pharmacogenomics.

Daniëlle van Manen, Angélique B van 't Wout, Hanneke Schuitemaker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Retrovirology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Natural Resistance to HIV Infection: Role of Immune Activation.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Long Noncoding RNACells · 2019
    Review
  10. Genetic susceptibility to infectious diseases: Current status and future perspectives from genome-wide approaches.Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 2018
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Daniëlle van ManenDepartment of Experimental Immunology, Sanquin Research, Landsteiner Laboratory, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Angélique B van 't Wout
Hanneke Schuitemaker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Susceptibility to HIV-1 and the clinical course after infection show a substantial heterogeneity between individuals. Part of this variability can be attributed to host genetic variation. Initial candidate gene studies have revealed interesting host factors that influence HIV infection, replication and pathogenesis. Recently, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were utilized for unbiased searches at a genome-wide level to discover novel genetic factors and pathways involved in HIV-1 infection. This review gives an overview of findings from the GWAS performed on HIV infection, within different cohorts, with variable patient and phenotype selection. Furthermore, novel techniques and strategies in research that might contribute to the complete understanding of virus-host interactions and its role on the pathogenesis of HIV infection are discussed.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHost-Pathogen InteractionsHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumans

Identifiers

PMID22920050
PMCPMC3468375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.