ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2014
Development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay to measure serum-neutralizing antibodies against coxsackievirus B3.
Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Development of a rapid neutralization testing system for Rhinovirus C15 based on the enzyme-linked immunospot assay.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Serological survey of neutralizing antibodies to eight major enteroviruses among healthy population.Emerging microbes & infections · 2018Article
- A rapid and quantitative assay for measuring neutralizing antibodies of Coxsackievirus B3.Journal of virological methods · 2016Article
- Development of an HSV-1 neutralization test with a glycoprotein D specific antibody for measurement of neutralizing antibody titer in human sera.Virology journal · 2016Article
- Novel N-benzenesulfonyl sophocarpinol derivatives as coxsackie B virus inhibitors.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3) is the most common pathogen that induces acute and chronic viral myocarditis in children. The cytopathic effect (CPE)-based neutralization test (Nt-CPE) and the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) are the most common methods for measuring neutralizing antibody titers against CVB3 in blood serum samples. However, these two methods are inefficient for CVB3 vaccine clinical trials, which require the testing of a large number of serum specimens. In this study, we developed an efficient neutralization test based on the enzyme-linked immunospot (Nt-ELISPOT) assay for measuring CVB3-neutralizing antibodies. This modified ELISPOT assay was based on the use of a monoclonal antibody against the viral capsid protein VP1 to detect the cells that are infected with CVB3, which, after immunoperoxidase staining, are counted as spots using an automated ELISPOT analyzer. Using the modified ELISPOT assay, we characterized the infection kinetics of CVB3 and divided the infection process of CVB3 on a cluster of cells into four phases. The stability of the Nt-ELISPOT was then evaluated. We found that over a wide range of infectious doses (10(2) to 10(6.5)× 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID(50)] per well), the neutralizing titers of the sera were steady as long as they were tested during the log phase or the first half of the stationary phase of growth of the spots. We successfully shortened the testing period from 7 days to approximately 20 h. We also found that there was a good correlation (R(2) = 0.9462) between the Nt-ELISPOT and the Nt-CPE assays. Overall, the Nt-ELISPOT assay is a reliable and efficient method for measuring neutralizing antibodies in serum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.