Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40455825›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025

Pre-clinical studies of Schistosoma mansoni vaccines: A scoping review.

Emma L Houlder, Lucas Ferreira da Silva, Angela van Diepen, Murilo Sena Amaral, R Alan Wilson, Cornelis H Hokke, Meta Roestenberg, Wilfried A M Bakker

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Emma L HoulderLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0448-6055
Lucas Ferreira da SilvaHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Angela van DiepenLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Murilo Sena AmaralLaboratório de Ciclo Celular, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil.
R Alan WilsonYork Biomedical Research Institute, Department of Biology, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Cornelis H HokkeLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Meta RoestenbergLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wilfried A M BakkerBatavia Biosciences B.V., Bioscience Park Leiden, Zernikedreef 16, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HADEA)European UnionEuropean Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchistosomiasis is caused by infection with worms of the genus Schistosoma including S. mansoni. Over 200 million people are infected, sterile immunity does not naturally develop, and no vaccine is available. This could be a critical tool to achieve control and elimination. Numerous candidates have been tested in pre-clinical models, but there is not yet an approved vaccine. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe conducted a scoping review using a keyword search on Web of Science and a MeSH term search on PubMed. Articles were screened and included if they tested a defined vaccine candidate in a pre-clinical protection assay against S. mansoni between 1994-2024. Vaccine formulation, study design, and efficacy parameters from all articles were extracted. This data was summarised graphically, with the influence of different parameters appraised. A total of 141 candidate antigens were tested in 108 articles over the last 30 years, with most antigens tested only once and three (Sm-CatB, Sm-p80, and Sm-14) tested over 20 times. The median protective efficacy against worms was 35%. 10 antigens achieved over 60% efficacy, and only two (Sm-p80 and Sm-CatB) over 90%. Large variations in efficacy were observed with all repeatedly tested antigens, likely attributable to differing formulations and study designs. The effect of these varying parameters on the resultant efficacy was evaluated.

conclusionsA few vaccine candidates have achieved promising efficacy in pre-clinical studies. Most vaccines tested however have efficacy that falls short of that required for an impactful schistosomiasis vaccine. The diversity in study designs makes comparing vaccine targets a challenge. Use of consistent and optimized vaccine formulation (including adjuvant and platform) and study design parameters is critical to expedite the development of a schistosome vaccine.

Indexed as

Schistosoma mansoniSchistosomiasis mansoniVaccinesAnimalsAntigens, HelminthHumansAntigens, HelminthVaccines

Identifiers

PMID40455825
PMCPMC12158002

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.