Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28425928›Full record

ReviewViruses2017

Porcine Circoviruses and Xenotransplantation.

Joachim Denner, Annette Mankertz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joachim DennerRobert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353 Berlin, Germany. DennerJ@rki.de.
Annette MankertzRobert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353 Berlin, Germany. MankertzA@rki.de.
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Allotransplantation and xenotransplantation may be associated with the transmission of pathogens from the donor to the recipient. Whereas in the case of allotransplantation the transmitted microorganisms and their pathogenic effect are well characterized, the possible influence of porcine microorganisms on humans is mostly unknown. Porcine circoviruses (PCVs) are common in pig breeds and they belong to porcine microorganisms that still have not been fully addressed in terms of evaluating the potential risk of xenotransplantation using pig cells, tissues, and organs. Two types of PCVs are known: porcine circovirus (PCV) 1 and PCV2. Whereas PCV1 is apathogenic in pigs, PCV2 may induce severe pig diseases. Although most pigs are subclinically infected, we do not know whether this infection impairs pig transplant functionality, particularly because PCV2 is immunosuppressive. In addition, vaccination against PCV2 is able to prevent diseases, but in most cases not transmission of the virus. Therefore, PCV2 has to be eliminated to obtain xenotransplants from uninfected healthy animals. Although there is evidence that PCV2 does not infect-at least immunocompetent-humans, animals should be screened using sensitive methods to ensure virus elimination by selection, Cesarean delivery, vaccination, or embryo transfer.

Indexed as

SwineAnimalsCircovirusDisease Transmission, InfectiousHumansTransplantation, Heterologousporcine circovirusestransspecies transmission of virusesvirus safety of xenotransplantationxenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID28425928
PMCPMC5408689
OpenAlexW2608173999

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.