ReviewCell chemical biology2022
Integrating complex host-pathogen immune environments into S. aureus vaccine studies.
Review in Cell chemical biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress on T-cell responses inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Multivalent nanobodies for potent and broad neutralization of Staphylococcus aureus toxins.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Overcoming Immune Evasion inACS infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Reconstructing the Antibiotic Pipeline: Natural Alternatives to Antibacterial Agents.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- The lack of a biorepository during vaccine trials: A lost opportunity to understand staphylococcal immunity.Vaccine · 2025Article
- Forssman and the staphylococcal hemolysins.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025Review
- Synergistic nano-vaccine strategy for comprehensive activation of adaptive and innate immunity againstFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Immune Responses to Methicillin-ResistantVaccines · 2024Review
- LinkingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- PBITProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- The characteristics of pre-existing humoral imprint determine efficacy of S. aureus vaccines and support alternative vaccine approaches.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Retrospective Study onAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Immunoglobulin G subclasses confer protection againstProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Toward an effective Staphylococcus vaccine: why have candidates failed and what is the next step?Expert review of vaccinesArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is a leading cause of bacterial infection and antibiotic resistance globally. Therefore, development of an effective vaccine has been a major goal of the SA field for the past decades. With the wealth of understanding of pathogenesis, the failure of all SA vaccine trials has been a surprise. We argue that experimental SA vaccines have not worked because vaccines have been studied in naive laboratory animals, whereas clinical vaccine efficacy is tested in immune environments reprogrammed by SA. Here, we review the failed SA vaccines that have seemingly defied all principles of vaccinology. We describe major SA evasion strategies and suggest that they reshape the immune environment in a way that makes vaccines prone to failures. We propose that appropriate integration of concepts of host-pathogen interaction into vaccine study designs could lead to insight critical for the development of an effective SA vaccine.
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.