Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25333059›Full record

ReviewJournal of immunology research2014

The impact of "omic" and imaging technologies on assessing the host immune response to biodefence agents.

Julia A Tree, Helen Flick-Smith, Michael J Elmore, Caroline A Rowland

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of immunology research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Julia A TreeBiodefence and PreClinical Evaluation Group, Public Health England (PHE), Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP5 3NU, UK.
Helen Flick-SmithBiomedical Sciences Department, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ, UK.
Michael J ElmoreBiodefence and PreClinical Evaluation Group, Public Health England (PHE), Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP5 3NU, UK.
Caroline A RowlandBiomedical Sciences Department, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the interactions between host and pathogen is important for the development and assessment of medical countermeasures to infectious agents, including potential biodefence pathogens such as Bacillus anthracis, Ebola virus, and Francisella tularensis. This review focuses on technological advances which allow this interaction to be studied in much greater detail. Namely, the use of "omic" technologies (next generation sequencing, DNA, and protein microarrays) for dissecting the underlying host response to infection at the molecular level; optical imaging techniques (flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy) for assessing cellular responses to infection; and biophotonic imaging for visualising the infectious disease process. All of these technologies hold great promise for important breakthroughs in the rational development of vaccines and therapeutics for biodefence agents.

Indexed as

Bacillus anthracisEbolavirusFlow CytometryFrancisella tularensisHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansImmune SystemMicroarray AnalysisMicroscopy, Fluorescence

Identifiers

PMID25333059
PMCPMC4182007

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.