ReviewImmunological reviews2023
Physiology and pathology of the C3 amplification cycle: A retrospective.
Review in Immunological reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between systemic complement levels and choroidal thickness in advanced non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Interactions Between the Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Adolescence-onset atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: is it different from infant-onset?Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024Article
- Glomerular injury induced by vinyl carbamate in A/J inbred mice: a novel model of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Physiology and pathology of the C3 amplification cycle: A retrospective.Immunological reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The C3 "Tickover" hypothesis, a mechanism whereby the host maintains constant surveillance of potential invading pathogens, targeting them for elimination through amplified C3b generation and C3-dependent effector mechanisms, was proposed by the late Professor Peter Lachmann in 1973. This unique insight came from a combined understanding of the complement system as it was then defined and the nature of the disease process in rare complement deficiencies and complement-driven diseases. In this review, I give a personal perspective of how understanding of "Tickover" has developed in the subsequent 50 years, culminating in the introduction into the clinic of therapeutic agents designed to combat amplification-driven disease.
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.