↓ Skip to main content

Mosquito bite immunization with radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites: safety, tolerability, protective efficacy and humoral immunogenicity

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Mosquito bite immunization with radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites: safety, tolerability, protective efficacy and humoral immunogenicity
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1435-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley W. Hickey, Joanne M. Lumsden, Sharina Reyes, Martha Sedegah, Michael R. Hollingdale, Daniel A. Freilich, Thomas C. Luke, Yupin Charoenvit, Lucy M. Goh, Mara P. Berzins, Lolita Bebris, John B. Sacci, Patricia De La Vega, Ruobing Wang, Harini Ganeshan, Esteban N. Abot, Daniel J. Carucci, Denise L. Doolan, Gary T. Brice, Anita Kumar, Joao Aguiar, Thomas B. Nutman, Susan F. Leitman, Stephen L. Hoffman, Judith E. Epstein, Thomas L. Richie

Abstract

In this phase 1 clinical trial, healthy adult, malaria-naïve subjects were immunized with radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites (PfRAS) by mosquito bite and then underwent controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). The PfRAS model for immunization against malaria had previously induced >90 % sterile protection against homologous CHMI. This study was to further explore the safety, tolerability and protective efficacy of the PfRAS model and to provide biological specimens to characterize protective immune responses and identify protective antigens in support of malaria vaccine development. Fifty-seven subjects were screened, 41 enrolled and 30 received at least one immunization. The true-immunized subjects received PfRAS via mosquito bite and the mock-immunized subjects received mosquito bites from irradiated uninfected mosquitoes. Sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected before and after PfRAS immunizations. Immunization with PfRAS was generally safe and well tolerated, and repeated immunization via mosquito bite did not appear to increase the risk or severity of AEs. Local adverse events (AEs) of true-immunized and mock-immunized groups consisted of erythaema, papules, swelling, and induration and were consistent with reactions from mosquito bites seen in nature. Two subjects, one true- and one mock-immunized, developed large local reactions that completely resolved, were likely a result of mosquito salivary antigens, and were withdrawn from further participation as a safety precaution. Systemic AEs were generally rare and mild, consisting of headache, myalgia, nausea, and low-grade fevers. Two true-immunized subjects experienced fever, malaise, myalgia, nausea, and rigours approximately 16 h after immunization. These symptoms likely resulted from pre-formed antibodies interacting with mosquito salivary antigens. Ten subjects immunized with PfRAS underwent CHMI and five subjects (50 %) were sterilely protected and there was a significant delay to parasitaemia in the other five subjects. All ten subjects developed humoral immune responses to whole sporozoites and to the circumsporozoite protein prior to CHMI, although the differences between protected and non-protected subjects were not statistically significant for this small sample size. The protective efficacy of this clinical trial (50 %) was notably less than previously reported (>90 %). This may be related to differences in host genetics or the inherent variability in mosquito biting behavior and numbers of sporozoites injected. Differences in trial procedures, such as the use of leukapheresis prior to CHMI and of a longer interval between the final immunization and CHMI in these subjects compared to earlier trials, may also have reduced protective efficacy. This trial has been retrospectively registered at ISRCTN ID 17372582, May 31, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 06 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,744,099
of 23,863,389 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#603
of 5,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,424
of 368,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#20
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,863,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,718 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 368,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.