Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26056742›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in immunology2015

New approaches to HIV vaccine development.

Barton F Haynes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Systems Biological Analysis of Immune Response to Influenza Vaccination.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Use of CRISPR/Cas9 as a Tool to Study Human Infectious Viruses.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Method for Quantifying Oxidized Methionines and Application to HIV-1 Env.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2018
    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

1 author.

Barton F HaynesDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Departments of Medicine and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, United States. Electronic address: barton.haynes@duke.edu.

Funding

Virus biology scientific research support componentUM1AI100645 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MCMICHAEL, ANDREW JAMES · 2012 to 2018
$204.7M
NIAID NIH HHS AI100645NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI100645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of a safe and effective vaccine for HIV is a major global priority. However, to date, efforts to design an HIV vaccine with methods used for development of other successful viral vaccines have not succeeded due to HIV diversity, HIV integration into the host genome, and ability of HIV to consistently evade anti-viral immune responses. Recent success in isolation of potent broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs), in discovery of mechanisms of bnAb induction, and in discovery of atypical mechanisms of CD8T cell killing of HIV-infected cells, have opened new avenues for strategies for HIV vaccine design.

Indexed as

AIDS VaccinesAnimalsAntibodies, NeutralizingCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesCytotoxicity, ImmunologicHIV InfectionsHumansImmune EvasionAIDS VaccinesAntibodies, Neutralizing

Identifiers

PMID26056742
PMCPMC4553082

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.