Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29184549›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2017

The Immunology of Wild Rodents: Current Status and Future Prospects.

Mark Viney, Eleanor M Riley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers 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
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Efficiency of anthelmintic treatment and its effect on microparasite dynamics in wildInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Health Monitoring of Laboratory Rodent Colonies-Talking about (R)evolution.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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.

Mark VineySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Eleanor M RileyDepartment of Immunology and Infection, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wild animals' immune responses contribute to their evolutionary fitness. These responses are moulded by selection to be appropriate to the actual antigenic environment in which the animals live, but without imposing an excessive energetic demand which compromises other component of fitness. But, exactly what these responses are, and how they compare with those of laboratory animals, has been little studied. Here, we review the very small number of published studies of immune responses of wild rodents, finding general agreement that their humoral (antibody) responses are highly elevated when compared with those of laboratory animals, and that wild rodents' cellular immune system reveals extensive antigenic exposure. In contrast, proliferative and cytokine responses of

Indexed as

immuneimmunologymouseratrodentvolewild

Identifiers

PMID29184549
PMCPMC5694458

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.