Usage Information
Abstract
Vaccination of malaria-naive volunteers with a high dose of Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites chemoattenuated by chloroquine (CQ) (PfSPZ-CVac [CQ]) has previously demonstrated full protection against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). However, lower doses of PfSPZ-CVac [CQ] resulted in incomplete protection. This provides the opportunity to understand the immune mechanisms needed for better vaccine-induced protection by comparing individuals who were protected with those not protected. Using mass cytometry, we characterized immune cell composition and responses of malaria-naive European volunteers who received either lower doses of PfSPZ-CVac [CQ], resulting in 50% protection irrespective of the dose, or a placebo vaccination, with everyone becoming infected following CHMI. Clusters of CD4+ and γδ T cells associated with protection were identified, consistent with their known role in malaria immunity. Additionally, EMRA CD8+ T cells and CD56+CD8+ T cell clusters were associated with protection. In a cohort from a malaria-endemic area in Gabon, these CD8+ T cell clusters were also associated with parasitemia control in individuals with lifelong exposure to malaria. Upon stimulation with P. falciparum–infected erythrocytes, CD4+, γδ, and EMRA CD8+ T cells produced IFN-γ and/or TNF, indicating their ability to mediate responses that eliminate malaria parasites.
Authors
Yoanne D. Mouwenda, Simon P. Jochems, Vincent Van Unen, Madeleine Eunice Betouke Ongwe, Wouter A.A. de Steenhuijsen Piters, Koen A. Stam, Marguerite Massinga Loembe, Betty Kim Lee Sim, Meral Esen, Stephen L. Hoffman, Peter G. Kremsner, Rolf Fendel, Benjamin Mordmüller, Maria Yazdanbakhsh
Usage data is cumulative from March 2025 through March 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,520 | 205 |
| 170 | 54 | |
| Figure | 286 | 9 |
| Table | 43 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 85 | 17 |
| Citation downloads | 125 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,229 | 285 |
| Total Views | 2,514 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
