Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011793›Full record

ReviewMedical microbiology and immunology2019

Cellular reservoirs of latent cytomegaloviruses.

Matthias J Reddehase, Niels A W Lemmermann

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mouse Models for Human Herpesviruses.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cytomegalovirus in the transplant setting: Where are we now and what happens next? A report from the International CMV Symposium 2021.Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society · 2022
    Review
  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.

Matthias J ReddehaseInstitute for Virology and Research Center for Immunotherapy (FZI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Obere Zahlbacher Strasse 67, Hochhaus am Augustusplatz, 55131, Mainz, Germany. Matthias.Reddehase@uni-mainz.de.
Niels A W LemmermannInstitute for Virology and Research Center for Immunotherapy (FZI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Obere Zahlbacher Strasse 67, Hochhaus am Augustusplatz, 55131, Mainz, Germany. lemmermann@uni-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-6497
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB1292, individual project TP11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cytomegaloviruses (CMVs), members of the β-subfamily of the herpesvirus family, have co-speciated with their respective mammalian hosts resulting in a mutual virus-host adaptation reflected by sets of 'private' viral genes that a particular CMV species does not share with other CMVs and that define the host-species specificity of CMVs. Nonetheless, based on "biological convergence" in evolution, fundamental rules in viral pathogenesis and immune control are functionally analogous between different virus-host pairs. Therefore, the mouse model of infection with murine CMV (mCMV) has revealed generally valid principles of CMV-host interactions. Specifically, the mouse model has paved the way to cellular immunotherapy of CMV disease in immunocompromised recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Precisely in the context of HCT, however, current view assumes that there exists a major difference between hCMV and mCMV regarding "latent virus reservoirs" in that only hCMV establishes latency in hematopoietic lineage cells (HLCs), whereas mCMV establishes latency in endothelial cells. This would imply that only hCMV can reactivate from transplanted HLCs of a latently infected donor. In addition, as viral transcriptional activity during latency is discussed as a driver of clonal T-cell expansion over lifetime, a phenomenon known as "memory inflation", it is important to know if hCMV and mCMV establish latency in the same cell type(s) for imprinting the immune system. Here, we review the currently available evidence to propose that the alleged difference in latent virus reservoirs between hCMV and mCMV may rather relate to a difference in the focus of research. While studies on hCMV latency in HLCs likely described a non-canonical, transient type-2 latency, studies in the mouse model focussed on canonical, lifelong type-1 latency.

Indexed as

Host-Pathogen InteractionsVirus LatencyAnimalsCytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus InfectionsEndothelial CellsHumansMiceCytomegalovirusEndothelial cells (EC)Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)Hematopoietic lineageLatencyLatent virus reservoirMyelopoietic lineageReactivationSolid organ transplantation (SOT)

Identifiers

PMID31011793
OpenAlexW2940593282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.