↓ Skip to main content

Studying the effect of chloroquine on sporozoite-induced protection and immune responses in Plasmodium berghei malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Studying the effect of chloroquine on sporozoite-induced protection and immune responses in Plasmodium berghei malaria
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0626-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Else M Bijker, Krystelle Nganou-Makamdop, Geert-Jan van Gemert, Fidel Zavala, Ian Cockburn, Robert W Sauerwein

Abstract

Sporozoite immunization of animals and humans under a chemo-prophylactic cover of chloroquine (CPS-CQ) efficiently induces sterile protection against malaria. In humans, CPS-CQ is strikingly more efficient than immunization with radiation attenuated sporozoites (RAS), raising the hypothesis that this might be partially due to CQ. Chloroquine, an established anti-malarial drug, is also well known for its immune modulating properties including improvement of cross-presentation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether co-administration of CQ during sporozoite immunization improves cellular responses and protective efficacy in Plasmodium berghei models. A number of experiments in selected complimentary P. berghei murine models in Balb/cByJ and C57BL/6j mice was performed. First, the effect of CQ administration on the induction of protection and immune responses by RAS immunization was studied. Next, the effect of CQ on the induction of circumsporozoite (CS) protein-specific CD8(+) T cells by immunization with P. berghei parasites expressing a mutant CS protein was investigated. Finally, a direct comparison of CPS-CQ to CPS with mefloquine (MQ), an anti-malarial with little known immune modulating effects, was performed. When CQ was co-administered during immunization with graded numbers of RAS, this did not lead to an increase in frequencies of total memory CD8(+) T cells or CS protein-specific CD8(+) T cells. Also parasite-specific cytokine production and protection remained unaltered. Replacement of CQ by MQ for CPS immunization resulted in significantly reduced percentages of IFNγ producing memory T cells in the liver (p = 0.01), but similar protection. This study does not provide evidence for a direct beneficial effect of CQ on the induction of sporozoite-induced immune responses and protection in P. berghei malaria models. Alternatively, the higher efficiency of CPS compared to RAS might be explained by an indirect effect of CQ through limiting blood-stage exposure after immunization or to increased antigen exposure and, therefore, improved breadth of the immune response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 14%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,752,946
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,848
of 5,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,116
of 263,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#77
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.