ArticleBioinformation2016
Implications from predicted B-cell and T-cell epitopes of Plasmodium falciparum merozoite proteins EBA175-RII and Rh5.
Article in Bioinformation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identification and Immune Assessment of T Cell Epitopes in FiveFrontiers in immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The leading circumsporozoite protein (CSP) based malaria vaccine, RTS,S, though promising, has shown limited efficacy in field studies. There is therefore, still a need to identify other malaria vaccine targets. Merozoite antigens are potential vaccine candidates, since naturally acquired antibodies generated against them inhibit erythrocyte invasion and in some cases result in the clinical protection from disease. We thus used in silico tools (BCPreds, NetMHCcons and NetMHCIIpan 3.0) to predict B-cell epitopes (BCEs) and T-cell epitopes (TCEs) in two merozoite invasion proteins, EBA175-RII and Rh5. Initially, we validated these tools using CSP to determine whether the algorithms could predict the epitopes in the RTS,S vaccine. In EBA175-RII, we prioritised three BCEs 15REKRKGMKWDCKKKNDRSNY34, 420SNRKLVGKINTNSNYVHRNKQ440 and 528WISKKKEEYNKQAKQYQEYQ547, a CD8+ epitope 553KMYSEFKSI561 and a CD4+ epitope 440QNDKLFRDEWWK VIKKD456. Three Rh5 epitopes were prioritised, a BCE 344SCYNNNFCNTNGIRYHYDEY363, a CD8+ epitope 198STYGKCIAV206 and a Rh5 CD4+ epitope 180TFLDYYKHLSYNSIYHKSSTY200. All these epitopes are in the region involved in the proteins' interaction with their erythrocyte receptors, thus enabling erythrocyte invasion. Therefore, upon validation of their immunogenicity, by ELISA using serum from a malaria endemic population, antibodies to these epitopes may inhibit erythrocyte invasion. All the epitopes we predicted in EBA175-RII and Rh5 are novel. We also identified polymorphic epitopes that may escape host immunity, as some variants were not predicted as epitopes, suggesting that they may not be immunogenic regions. We present a set of epitopes that following in vitro validation provide a set of molecules to screen as potential vaccine candidates.
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.