Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495000›Full record

ReviewImmunological reviews2024

Life-threatening antibodies: The discovery of anaphylaxis.

Marc Daëron, Birgitta Heyman, Anne Marie Moulin

Abstract readReviewHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Review in Immunological reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marc DaëronCentre d'Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy, Aix Marseille Université-CNRS-Inserm, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5651-9851
Birgitta HeymanDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0869-0483
Anne Marie MoulinUMR 7219 SPHERE, CNRS/Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-3880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It was at the turn of the 20th century, that immune serum was found both to save children dying from toxins of deadly pathogens, and to kill a dog within minutes following an injection of harmless doses of sea anemone toxins. This means that, before being formally identified in immune serum, antibodies were already known to be both protective and pathogenic. For this provocative finding, Charles Richet was awarded the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Because, as its name said, anaphylaxis was understood as "the contrary of protection," unique mechanisms were found to explain it. Because, as its name did not initially say but finally said, allergy was understood as a reaction "other" than immunity, its symptoms were explained by mechanisms similar to those that explained anaphylaxis. We examined here the intricate relationships between anaphylaxis, allergy and immunity. Progressively anaphylaxis became one among other pathological effects of an immune response, and allergy an inflammatory disease among others. Looking at antibodies back in the past enables us not only to learn where they come from, but also to follow trends that contributed to shape immunology, some of which may persist in today's immunological thinking and say something about the future.

Indexed as

AnaphylaxisAnimalsAntibodiesHistory, 20th CenturyHumansHypersensitivityAntibodiesallergyanaphylaxisantibodiesRichet

Identifiers

PMID39495000
PMCPMC13459517

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.