Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28646586›Full record

ReviewImmunology2017

Vaccine candidate discovery for the next generation of malaria vaccines.

James Tuju, Gathoni Kamuyu, Linda M Murungi, Faith H A Osier

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Breadth of Antibodies toFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Analysis of Global Research on Malaria andInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Identification of Scientific Communities and Their Approach to Worldwide Malaria Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

James TujuKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Centre for Geographic Medicine Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-0624-1791
Gathoni KamuyuKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Centre for Geographic Medicine Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Linda M MurungiKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Centre for Geographic Medicine Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Faith H A OsierKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Centre for Geographic Medicine Coast, Kilifi, Kenya.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KEHeidelberg University · DEPwani University · KE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L00450X/1Medical Research Council MR/P020321/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107499/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 107769/Z/10/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although epidemiological observations, IgG passive transfer studies and experimental infections in humans all support the feasibility of developing highly effective malaria vaccines, the precise antigens that induce protective immunity remain uncertain. Here, we review the methodologies applied to vaccine candidate discovery for Plasmodium falciparum malaria from the pre- to post-genomic era. Probing of genomic and cDNA libraries with antibodies of defined specificities or functional activity predominated the former, whereas reverse vaccinology encompassing high throughput in silico analyses of genomic, transcriptomic or proteomic parasite data sets is the mainstay of the latter. Antibody-guided vaccine design spanned both eras but currently benefits from technological advances facilitating high-throughput screening and downstream applications. We make the case that although we have exponentially increased our ability to identify numerous potential vaccine candidates in a relatively short space of time, a significant bottleneck remains in their validation and prioritization for evaluation in clinical trials. Longitudinal cohort studies provide supportive evidence but results are often conflicting between studies. Demonstration of antigen-specific antibody function is valuable but the relative importance of one mechanism over another with regards to protection remains undetermined. Animal models offer useful insights but may not accurately reflect human disease. Challenge studies in humans are preferable but prohibitively expensive. In the absence of reliable correlates of protection, suitable animal models or a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying protective immunity in humans, vaccine candidate discovery per se may not be sufficient to provide the paradigm shift necessary to develop the next generation of highly effective subunit malaria vaccines.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanDrug DiscoveryGene LibraryHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansMalaria, FalciparumMalaria VaccinesPlasmodium falciparumProteomicsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanMalaria VaccinesantibodiesbioinformaticsPlasmodium falciparumvaccines

Identifiers

PMID28646586
PMCPMC5588761
OpenAlexW2696986331

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.