The adenovirus type 5 (Ad5)-based vaccine developed by Merck failed to either prevent HIV-1 infection or suppress viral load in subsequently infected subjects in the STEP human Phase 2b efficacy trial. Analogous vaccines had previously also failed in the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) challenge-rhesus macaque model. In contrast, vaccine protection studies that used challenge with a chimeric simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV89.6P) in macaques did not predict the human trial results. Ad5 vector-based vaccines did not protect macaques from infection after SHIV89.6P challenge but did cause a substantial reduction in viral load and a preservation of CD4+ T cell counts after infection, findings that were not reproduced in the human trials. Although the SIV challenge model is incompletely validated, we propose that its expanded use can help facilitate the prioritization of candidate HIV-1 vaccines, ensuring that resources are focused on the most promising candidates. Vaccine designers must now develop T cell vaccine strategies that reduce viral load after heterologous challenge.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
2%
Other
7
7%
Unknown
21
20%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,045,480
of 33,695,692 outputs
Outputs from Nature Medicine
#4,339
of 11,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,248
of 134,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Medicine
#3
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,695,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 110.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 134,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
