ArticlemBio2014
An avian H7N1 gain-of-function experiment of great concern.
Article in mBio, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A New Approach to Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Equation for Dual-Use and Gain-of-Function Research of Concern.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018Article
- Gain-of-Function Research and the Relevance to Clinical Practice.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Review
- Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) Review at American Society for Microbiology Journals.mBio · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inappropriately named gain-of-function influenza research seeks to confer airborne transmission on avian influenza A viruses that otherwise cause only dead-end infections in humans. A recent study has succeeded in doing this with a highly pathogenic ostrich H7N1 virus in a ferret model without loss of virulence. If transposable to humans, this would constitute a novel virus with a case fatality rate ~30 greater than that of Spanish flu. A commentary from three distinguished virologists considered the benefits of this work to outweigh potential risks. I beg to disagree with conclusions in both papers, for the underlying science is not as strong as it appears.
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.