ArticlePloS one2016
Different Antibody Response against the Coxsackievirus A16 VP1 Capsid Protein: Specific or Non-Specific.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coxsackievirus A16 (CA16) is one of the major causative agents of hand, foot, and mouth disease worldwide. The non-neutralizing antibody response that targets CA16 VP1 remains poorly elucidated. In the present study, antibody responses against CA16 VP1 in Shanghai blood donors and Shanxi individuals were analyzed by ELISA and inhibitory ELISA using five CA16 VP1 antigens: VP11-297, VP141-297, VP11-60, VP145-58 and VP161-297. The correlation coefficients for most of the reactions against each of the five antigens and the inhibition of the anti-CA16 VP1 antibody response produced by the various antigens were higher in Shanghai blood donors compared to those in Shanxi individuals. VP11-297 and VP141-297 strongly inhibited the anti-CA16 VP1 response in serum samples from both populations, while VP145-58 and VP161-297 intermediately and weakly inhibited the anti-CA16 VP1 response, respectively, in only Shanghai group. A specific type of inhibition (anti-CA16 VP1 was completely inhibited by both VP11-60 and VP141-297) characterized by high neutralizing antibody titers was identified and accounted for 71.4% of the strongly reactive samples from the Shanghai group. These results indicate that the Shanghai blood donors exhibited a consistent and specific antibody response, while the Shanxi individuals showed an inconsistent and non-specific antibody response. These findings may improve the understanding of host humoral immunity against CA16 and help to identify an effective approach for seroepidemiological surveillance and specific diagnosis of CA16 infection based on normal and competitive ELISA.
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.