Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20518713›Full record

ReviewExpert review of vaccines2010

Antibody-profiling technologies for studying humoral responses to infectious agents.

Peter D Burbelo, Kathryn H Ching, Emily R Bush, Brian L Han, Michael J Iadarola

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of vaccines, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Serum antibody screening using glycan arrays.Chemical Society reviews · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Assays for Detecting Henipavirus Antibodies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Testing Antigens, Antibodies, and Immune Cells in COVID-19 as a Public Health Topic-Experience and Outlines.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. RNA Viruses ofViruses · 2020
    Article
  15. Serological and molecular rapid diagnostic tests for Toxoplasma infection in humans and animals.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Redefining environmental exposure for disease etiology.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter D BurbeloNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Building 49, Room 1C20, 49 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-4410, USA. burbelop@nidcr.nih.gov
Kathryn H Ching
Emily R Bush
Brian L Han
Michael J Iadarola
National Institutes of Health · USNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Pain and Immune ProcessesZIADE000724 · NIDCR · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH · PI IADAROLA, MICHAEL J. · 2009 to 2012
$2.6M
Mechanisms of Pain and Immune ProcessesZ01DE000724 · NIDCR · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH · PI IADAROLA, MICHAEL J. · 2008 to 2008
$848k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 DE000724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analyses of humoral responses against different infectious agents are critical for infectious disease diagnostics, understanding pathogenic mechanisms, and the development and monitoring of vaccines. While ELISAs are often used to measure antibody responses to one or several targets, new antibody-profiling technologies, such as protein microarrays, can now evaluate antibody responses to hundreds, or even thousands, of recombinant antigens at one time. These large-scale studies have uncovered new antigenic targets, provided new insights into vaccine research and yielded an overview of immunoreactivity against almost the entire proteome of certain pathogens. However, solid-phase antigen arrays also have drawbacks that limit the type of information obtained, including suboptimal detection of conformational epitopes, high backgrounds due to impure antigens and a narrow dynamic range of detection. We have developed a solution-phase antibody-profiling technology, luciferase immunoprecipitation systems (LIPS), which harnesses light-emitting recombinant antigen fusion proteins to quantitatively measure patient antibody titers. Owing to the highly linear light output of the luciferase reporter, some antibodies can be detected without serum dilution in a dynamic range of detection often spanning seven orders of magnitude. When LIPS is applied iteratively with multiple target antigens, a high-definition antibody profile is obtained. Here, we discuss the application of these different antibody-profiling technologies and their associated limitations with particular emphasis on protein microarrays. We also describe LIPS in detail and discuss several clinically relevant uses of the technology. Together, these new technologies offer new tools for understanding humoral responses to known and emerging infectious agents.

Indexed as

Immunity, HumoralAnimalsAntibodiesAntigensHumansImmunoassayImmunoprecipitationInfectionsLuciferasesMicrospheresProtein Array AnalysisRecombinant ProteinsVaccinesAntibodiesAntigensLuciferasesRecombinant ProteinsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID20518713
PMCPMC3417761
OpenAlexW2112484242

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.