2010
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010685
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Why Functional Pre-Erythrocytic and Bloodstage Malaria Vaccines Fail: A Meta-Analysis of Fully Protective Immunizations and Novel Immunological Model

Abstract: BackgroundClinically protective malaria vaccines consistently fail to protect adults and children in endemic settings, and at best only partially protect infants.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe identify and evaluate 1916 immunization studies between 1965-February 2010, and exclude partially or nonprotective results to find 177 completely protective immunization experiments. Detailed reexamination reveals an unexpectedly mundane basis for selective vaccine failure: live malaria parasites in the skin inhibit va… Show more

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
26
8
5
2

Citation Types

3
20
0
1

Year Published

Range
2011
2011
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
33
5
2
1

Relationship

0
41

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 41 publications

(24 citation statements)
references

References 444 publications

3
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Moreover, GAP immunized IFNc) ⁄ ) mice produced sporozoite-specific antibodies but were not protected against a WT challenge (34). Overall, our findings corroborate the conclusions of a meta-analysis by Guilbride et al (35), emphasizing the poor capacity to induce protective efficacy after sporozoite inoculation via the skin as compared to the IV route. Although in human volunteers whole parasite immunization by bite of infected mosquitoes can induce complete protection (6,(36)(37)(38), mosquito bites are obviously not a practical route of immunization.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 90%
“…Overall, our findings corroborate the conclusions of a meta‐analysis by Guilbride et al. (35), emphasizing the poor capacity to induce protective efficacy after sporozoite inoculation via the skin as compared to the IV route.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation