Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23561886›Full record

ArticleComparative medicine2012

Reassessing the detection of B-virus-specific serum antibodies.

David Katz, Wei Shi, Martin J Wildes, Peter W Krug, Julia K Hilliard

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Comparative medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

David KatzViral Immunology Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. dkatz@gsu.edu
Wei Shi
Martin J Wildes
Peter W Krug
Julia K Hilliard
Georgia State University · US

Funding

NCRR NIH HHS P40 RR5162-20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

B virus, a natural pathogen of macaques, can cause a fatal zoonotic disease in humans. Serologic screening of macaques by titration ELISA (tELISA, screening test) and by Western blot analysis (WBA, confirmatory test) is one of the principle measures to prevent human infection. Here we slightly modified these 2 tests and reevaluated their correlation. We developed a high-throughput tELISA and used it to screen 278 sera simultaneously against the homologous BV antigen and the heterologous antigens of Papiine herpesvirus 2 and Human herpesvirus 1. More sera (35.6%) were positive by the BV-ELISA than by the HVP2-ELISA (21.6%) or HSV1-ELISA (19.8%). The superiority of the homologous tELISA over the heterologous tELISA was prominent in low-titer sera. WBA confirmed only 21% of the tELISA-positive sera with low or intermediate antibody titers. These sera might have contained antibodies to conformational epitopes that could not be detected by WBA, in which denatured antigens are used, but that could be detected by tELISA, which detects both linear and conformational epitopes. WBA confirmed 82% of the tELISA high-titer sera. However, WBA defined the remaining 18% of sera, which were negative by tELISA, as nonnegative. This finding can be attributed to the difficulties encountered with the subjective interpretation of results by WBA. Together, the current results indicate the inadequacy of WBA as a confirmatory assay for sera with low antibody titers.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralBlotting, WesternEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHerpesvirus 1, CercopithecineHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysMacaca mulattaRabbitsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID23561886
PMCPMC3527757
OpenAlexW1509681028

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.