Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33514459›Full record

ReviewTrends in immunology2021

Rationalizing Random Walks: Replicating Protective Antibody Trajectories.

Jennifer L Remmel, Margaret E Ackerman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jennifer L RemmelThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Margaret E AckermanThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. Electronic address: Margaret.E.Ackerman@Dartmouth.edu.
Dartmouth College · US

Funding

Directing Antibody Effector Activity via Controlled IgG Subclass SwitchingR01AI131975 · NIAID · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ACKERMAN, MARGARET E · 2017 to 2020
$2.6M
Targeting vulnerable Dengue epitopes: Characterization of broadly neutralizing antibodies and engineering novel epitope-focusing immunogensF31AI145106 · NIAID · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI LAI, JENNIFER I. · 2019 to 2019
$45k
NIAID NIH HHS F31 AI145106NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI131975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

'Reverse vaccinology 2.0' aims to rationally reproduce template antibody responses, such as broadly neutralizing antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus-1. While observations of antibody convergence across individuals support the assumption that responses may be replicated, the diversity of humoral immunity and the process of antibody selection are rooted in stochasticity. Drawing from experience with in vitro antibody engineering by directed evolution, we consider how antibody selection may be driven, as in germline-targeting vaccine approaches to elicit broadly neutralizing antibodies and illustrate the potential consequences of over-defining a template antibody response. We posit that the prospective definition of template antibody responses and the odds of replicating them must be considered within the randomness of humoral immunity.

Indexed as

Antibodies, NeutralizingHIV-1Antibody FormationHIV AntibodiesHumansProspective StudiesAntibodies, NeutralizingHIV Antibodiesantibody engineeringantibody selectiondirected evolutiongermline targetingrational vaccine designreverse vaccinology

Identifiers

PMID33514459
PMCPMC7914221
OpenAlexW3122747834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.