Home › Research › Treatments
The MultiTEP platform-based Alzheimer's disease epitope vaccine activates a broad repertoire of T helper cells in nonhuman primates
Davtyan H, Ghochikyan A, Petrushina I, Hovakimyan A, Davtyan A, Cribbs DH, Agadjanyan MG.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2014-02-20
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background As a prelude to clinical trials we have characterized B- and T-cell immune responses in macaques to AD vaccine candidates: AV-1955 and its slightly modified version, AV-1959 (with 3 additional promiscuous Th epitopes). Methods T- and B-cell epitope mapping was performed using the ELISPOT assay and competition ELISA, respectively. Results AV-1955 and AV-1959 did not stimulate potentially harmful autoreactive T cells, but instead activated a broad but individualized repertoire of Th cells specific to the MultiTEP platform in macaques. Although both vaccines induced robust anti-Aβ antibody responses without producing antibodies specific to Th epitopes of MultiTEP platforms, analyses of cellular immune responses in macaques demonstrated that the addition of Th epitopes in the case of AV-1959 created a more potent, superior vaccine. Conclusion AV-1959 is a promising vaccine candidate capable of producing therapeutically potent anti-amyloid antibody in a broader population of vaccinated subjects with high MHC class II gene polymorphisms.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Davtyan, H., Ghochikyan, A., Petrushina, I., Hovakimyan, A., Davtyan, A., Cribbs, D. H., et al. (2014). The MultiTEP platform-based Alzheimer's disease epitope vaccine activates a broad repertoire of T helper cells in nonhuman primates. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.12.003
Vancouver
Davtyan H, Ghochikyan A, Petrushina I, Hovakimyan A, Davtyan A, Cribbs DH, et al. The MultiTEP platform-based Alzheimer's disease epitope vaccine activates a broad repertoire of T helper cells in nonhuman primates. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.12.003. PMID: 24560029.
BibTeX
@article{davtyan2014-24560029,
author = {Davtyan, H. and Ghochikyan, A. and Petrushina, I. and Hovakimyan, A. and Davtyan, A. and Cribbs, D. H. and Agadjanyan, M. G.},
title = {{The MultiTEP platform-based Alzheimer's disease epitope vaccine activates a broad repertoire of T helper cells in nonhuman primates}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2013.12.003},
pmid = {24560029},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.12.003}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results AV-1955 and AV-1959 did not stimulate potentially harmful autoreactive T cells, but instead activated a broad but individualized repertoire of Th cells specific to the MultiTEP platform in macaques.
- Although both vaccines induced robust anti-Aβ antibody responses without producing antibodies specific to Th epitopes of MultiTEP platforms, analyses of cellular immune responses in macaques demonstrated that the addition of Th epitopes in the case of AV-1959 created a more potent, superior vaccine.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24560029) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “vaccine”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “vaccine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.