Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34882670›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Experimental human hookworm infection: a narrative historical review.

Paul R Chapman, Paul Giacomin, Alex Loukas, James S McCarthy

Open access · goldAbstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Is strongyloidiasis a zoonosis from dogs?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Clinical and laboratory findings of hookworms (Brazilian journal of veterinary medicine · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Inhibition Effects ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A case of severe hookworm infection.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul R ChapmanClinical Tropical Medicine, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0029-3806
Paul GiacominCentre for Molecular Therapeutics, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6326-6792
Alex LoukasCentre for Molecular Therapeutics, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
James S McCarthyClinical Tropical Medicine, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6596-9718
Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1896, a serendipitous laboratory accident led to the understanding that hookworms propagate infection by penetrating skin, a theory that was then confirmed with the first experimental human infection, reported in 1901. Experimental human infections undertaken in the 20th century enabled understanding of the natural history of infection and the immune response. More recently, experimental hookworm infection has been performed to investigate the immunomodulatory potential of hookworm infection and for the evaluation of hookworm vaccines and chemotherapeutic interventions. Experimental human hookworm infection has been proven to be safe, with no deaths observed in over 500 participants (although early reports predate systematic adverse event reporting) and no serious adverse events described in over 200 participants enrolled in contemporary clinical trials. While experimental human hookworm infection holds significant promise, as both a challenge model for testing anti-hookworm therapies and for treating various diseases of modernity, there are many challenges that present. These challenges include preparation and storage of larvae, which has not significantly changed since Harada and Mori first described their coproculture method in 1955. In vitro methods of hookworm larval culture, storage, and the development of meaningful potency or release assays are required. Surrogate markers of intestinal infection intensity are required because faecal egg counts or hookworm faecal DNA intensity lack the fidelity required for exploration of hookworm infection as a vaccine/drug testing platform or as a regulated therapy.

Indexed as

AncylostomatoideaAnimalsAntigens, HelminthFecesFemaleHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHookworm InfectionsHuman ExperimentationHumansResearchVaccinesAntigens, HelminthVaccines

Identifiers

PMID34882670
PMCPMC8659326
OpenAlexW4200257780

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.