Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493498›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022

Four Decades of Prophylactic EBV Vaccine Research: A Systematic Review and Historical Perspective.

Gabriela M Escalante, Lorraine Z Mutsvunguma, Murali Muniraju, Esther Rodriguez, Javier Gordon Ogembo

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriela M EscalanteIrell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.
Lorraine Z MutsvungumaDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.
Murali MunirajuDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.
Esther RodriguezIrell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.
Javier Gordon OgemboDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States.
Beckman Research InstituteCity of Hope · US

Funding

A multivalent prophylactic and therapeutic vaccine against EBV infection and EBV-associated malignanciesR56AI148295 · NIAID · BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE/CITY OF HOPE · PI OGEMBO, JAVIER GORDON · 2020 to 2020
$859k
NIAID NIH HHS R56 AI148295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the causal agent of infectious mononucleosis and has been associated with various cancers and autoimmune diseases. Despite decades of research efforts to combat this major global health burden, there is no approved prophylactic vaccine against EBV. To facilitate the rational design and assessment of an effective vaccine, we systematically reviewed pre-clinical and clinical prophylactic EBV vaccine studies to determine the antigens, delivery platforms, and animal models used in these studies. Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO's Global Index Medicus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 20, 2020, for EBV prophylactic vaccine studies focused on humoral immunity. Results: The search yielded 5,614 unique studies. 36 pre-clinical and 4 clinical studies were included in the analysis after screening against the exclusion criteria. In pre-clinical studies, gp350 was the most commonly used immunogen (33 studies), vaccines were most commonly delivered as monomeric proteins (12 studies), and mice were the most used animal model to test immunogenicity (15 studies). According to an adaptation of the CAMARADES checklist, 4 pre-clinical studies were rated as very high, 5 as high, 13 as moderate quality, 11 as poor, and 3 as very poor. In clinical studies, gp350 was the sole vaccine antigen, delivered in a vaccinia platform (1 study) or as a monomeric protein (3 studies). The present study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020198440). Conclusions: Four major obstacles have prevented the development of an effective prophylactic EBV vaccine: undefined correlates of immune protection, lack of knowledge regarding the ideal EBV antigen(s) for vaccination, lack of an appropriate animal model to test vaccine efficacy, and lack of knowledge regarding the ideal vaccine delivery platform. Our analysis supports a multivalent antigenic approach including two or more of the five main glycoproteins involved in viral entry (gp350, gB, gH/gL, gp42) and a multimeric approach to present these antigens. We anticipate that the application of two underused challenge models, rhesus macaques susceptible to rhesus lymphocryptovirus (an EBV homolog) and common marmosets, will permit the establishment of Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=198440, identifier PROSPERO I.D. CRD4202019844.

Indexed as

Epstein-Barr Virus InfectionsInfectious MononucleosisAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHerpesvirus 4, HumanMacaca mulattaMiceSerologic TestscancerEpstein-Barr virusglycoproteinherpesvirusinfectious mononucleosisneutralizing antibodypre-clinicalprophylactic vaccine

Identifiers

PMID35493498
PMCPMC9047024
OpenAlexW4223935007

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.