Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16129340›Full record

ReviewVeterinary journal (London, England : 1997)2005

Rational monoclonal antibody development to emerging pathogens, biothreat agents and agents of foreign animal disease: The antigen scale.

Jody D Berry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Introduction to Antibody-Drug Conjugates.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jody D BerryNational Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 1015 Arlington Street, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3E 3M4. berryjd@inspection.gc.ca

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many factors influence the choice of methods used to develop antibody to infectious agents. In this paper, we review the current status of the main technologies used to produce monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) from the B cells of antigen-sensitized animals. While companies are adopting advanced high-throughput methods, the major technologies used by veterinary and medical research laboratories are classical hybridoma fusion and recombinant library selection techniques. These methods have inherent advantages and limitations but have many common aspects when using immunized rodents. Laboratories with expertise in both methods of antibody development have a distinct advantage in their ability to advance mAb technology. New and re-emerging infectious threats in today's world emphasize the need for quality immunoreagents and the need to maintain expertise in mAb development. We provide examples of some common applications for mAb reagents used to identify pathogens such as the SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Bacillus anthracis, and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus. We also outline a framework for investigators to make rational decisions concerning which method to use to develop mAbs based upon characteristics of the pathogen under study and the intended downstream application. Lastly, we provide parameters for the immunisation of mice and a classification system which describes the expected outcome for mAb development strategies when using classes of immunogens to generate mAbs with desired activities.

Indexed as

BioterrorismAnimal DiseasesAnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigensCommunicable Diseases, EmergingHumansRecombinant ProteinsResearchAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigensRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16129340
PMCPMC7110446

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.