ArticleMalaria journal2023
Assessment of precision in growth inhibition assay (GIA) using human anti-PfRH5 antibodies.
Article in Malaria journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Malaria serology for surveillance, insights into immunity, and vaccine development.Infection and immunity · 2026Review
- Erythrocyte invasion in malaria: from molecular mechanisms to rational vaccines.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026Review
- PfRH5 vaccine; from the bench to the vial.NPJ vaccines · 2025Review
- An ImprovedAntibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Malaria vaccines: a new era of prevention and control.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024Review
- Vaccine-induced human monoclonal antibodies to PfRH5 show broadly neutralizing activity against P. falciparum clinical isolates.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- Article
- Autoantibodies inhibit Plasmodium falciparum growth and are associated with protection from clinical malaria.Immunity · 2024Article
- Article
- How to Accelerate Early Stage of Malaria Vaccine Development by Optimizing Functional Assays.Vaccines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor blood-stage malaria vaccine development, the in vitro growth inhibition assay (GIA) has been widely used to evaluate functionality of vaccine-induced antibodies (Ab), and Plasmodium falciparum reticulocyte-binding protein homolog 5 (RH5) is a leading blood-stage antigen. However, precision, also called "error of assay (EoA)", in GIA readouts and the source of EoA has not been evaluated systematically.
methodsIn the Main GIA experiment, 4 different cultures of P. falciparum 3D7 parasites were prepared with red blood cells (RBC) collected from 4 different donors. For each culture, 7 different anti-RH5 Ab (either monoclonal or polyclonal Ab) were tested by GIA at two concentrations on three different days (168 data points). To evaluate sources of EoA in % inhibition in GIA (%GIA), a linear model fit was conducted including donor (source of RBC) and day of GIA as independent variables. In addition, 180 human anti-RH5 polyclonal Ab were tested in a Clinical GIA experiment, where each Ab was tested at multiple concentrations in at least 3 independent GIAs using different RBCs (5,093 data points). The standard deviation (sd) in %GIA and in GIA
resultsThe Main GIA experiment revealed that the RBC donor effect was much larger than the day effect, and an obvious donor effect was also observed in the Clinical GIA experiment. Both %GIA and log-transformed GIA
conclusionsThe RBC donor effect (donor-to-donor variance on the same day) in GIA was much bigger than the day effect (day-to-day variance using the same donor's RBC) at least for the RH5 Ab evaluated in this study; thus, future GIA studies should consider the donor effect. In addition, the 95%CI for %GIA and GIA
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.