ReviewVaccines2026
The Role of Human Viral Entry Receptor Mouse Models in Advancing Antiviral Antibodies and Vaccines.
Review in Vaccines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human viral entry receptor mouse models exist to overcome a fundamental experimental barrier: many clinically important viruses bind their human entry factors far more efficiently than the corresponding murine orthologs, leaving conventional mice unable to support authentic infection, physiological tissue tropism, or meaningful countermeasure evaluation. This review is organized around the receptor-humanization concept rather than around a single coronavirus model. Engineering strategies compared here include random transgenesis, endogenous-locus knock-in, minimal receptor-interface humanization, conditional and inducible expression, and transient vector-mediated delivery. Receptor systems covered span human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2)-dependent sarbecoviruses, human dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (hDPP4)-dependent Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), human cluster of differentiation 4/human C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (hCD4/hCCR5)-dependentt human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), adenovirus receptor models, human intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (hICAM-1) rhinovirus systems, hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis D virus (HDV) entry-factor models, measles receptor models, poliovirus receptor/CD155 (PVR/CD155) models, human scavenger receptor class B member 2 (hSCARB2) enterovirus systems, and human transferrin receptor 1 (hTfR1) arenavirus models. We then discuss how these platforms support antibody evaluation, Fc-effector analysis, vaccine protection, variant benchmarking, and safety assessment. These models yield the most reliable data when the experimental question is explicitly entry-dependent and when receptor expression level, anatomical distribution, pathology window, and immune context have all been independently validated. They are least informative when receptor expression is non-physiological, when disease readouts are driven by promoter artifacts, or when post-entry species barriers remain the dominant bottleneck. A validation-centered framework is therefore proposed to guide the selection of each model for the specific antiviral antibody or vaccine question it can legitimately answer.
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.