↓ Skip to main content

Rhesus macaque and mouse models for down-selecting circumsporozoite protein based malaria vaccines differ significantly in immunogenicity and functional outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rhesus macaque and mouse models for down-selecting circumsporozoite protein based malaria vaccines differ significantly in immunogenicity and functional outcomes
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1766-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy W. Phares, Anthony D. May, Christopher J. Genito, Nathan A. Hoyt, Farhat A. Khan, Michael D. Porter, Margot DeBot, Norman C. Waters, Philippe Saudan, Sheetij Dutta

Abstract

Non-human primates, such as the rhesus macaques, are the preferred model for down-selecting human malaria vaccine formulations, but the rhesus model is expensive and does not allow for direct efficacy testing of human malaria vaccines. Transgenic rodent parasites expressing genes of human Plasmodium are now routinely used for efficacy studies of human malaria vaccines. Mice have however rarely predicted success in human malaria trials and there is scepticism whether mouse studies alone are sufficient to move a vaccine candidate into the clinic. A comparison of immunogenicity, fine-specificity and functional activity of two Alum-adjuvanted Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP)-based vaccines was conducted in mouse and rhesus models. One vaccine was a soluble recombinant protein (CSP) and the other was the same CSP covalently conjugated to the Qβ phage particle (Qβ-CSP). Mice showed different kinetics of antibody responses and different sensitivity to the NANP-repeat and N-terminal epitopes as compared to rhesus. While mice failed to discern differences between the protective efficacy of CSP versus Qβ-CSP vaccine following direct challenge with transgenic Plasmodium berghei parasites, rhesus serum from the Qβ-CSP-vaccinated animals induced higher in vivo sporozoite neutralization activity. Despite some immunologic parallels between models, these data demonstrate that differences between the immune responses induced in the two models risk conflicting decisions regarding potential vaccine utility in humans. In combination with historical observations, the data presented here suggest that although murine models may be useful for some purposes, non-human primate models may be more likely to predict the human response to investigational vaccines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 11 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,374,472
of 25,030,708 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,515
of 5,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,495
of 314,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#37
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,030,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 314,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.