ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2020
A Systematic Approach to HIV-1 Vaccine Immunogen Selection.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Immunoinformatic-driven design and evaluation of multi-epitope mRNA vaccine targeting HIV-1 gp120.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Advances in Infectious Disease Vaccine Adjuvants.Vaccines · 2022Review
- Structure-guided changes at the V2 apex of HIV-1 clade C trimer enhance elicitation of autologous neutralizing and broad V1V2-scaffold antibodies.Cell reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A tremendous loss of financial and human resources from seven large-scale HIV vaccine efficacy trials suggest a need for a systematic approach to vaccine selection. We conducted a systematic analysis of three important envelope glycoprotein (Env) vaccine candidates: BG505 SOSIP.664, 1086.C gp140, and 1086.C gp120 to determine the most promising by comparing their structure and antigenicity. We found that the BG505 SOSIP trimer and 1086.C gp140 clearly outperformed the 1086.C gp120 monomer. BG505 SOSIP.664 bound the strongest to the most potent and broadest broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) PG9, PGT145, VRC01, and PGT121. Of interest, although BG505 SOSIP.664 did not bind to the CH58 mAb, 1086.C gp140 bound strongly to this mAb, which belongs to a class of non-neutralizing antibodies that may be protective based on correlates of protection studies of the RV144 HIV vaccine trial. The 1086.C gp120 monomer was the least antigenic of the three vaccine immunogens, binding the weakest to bnAbs and CH58 mAb. Taken together, the evidence provided here combined with previous preclinical immunogenicity and efficacy data strongly argue that the BG505 SOSIP.664 trimer and 1086.C gp140 are likely to be better vaccine immunogens than the monomeric 1086.C gp120, which was just recently tested and shown to be nonefficacious in a phase IIb/III trial. Thus, to best utilize our financial and valuable human resources, we propose a systematic approach by not only comparing structure and antigenicity, but also immunogenicity and efficacy of Env vaccine candidates in the preclinical phase to the selection of only the most promising vaccine candidates for clinical testing.
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.