ArticleScientific reports2017
Development of a multiplex Endopep-MS assay for simultaneous detection of botulinum toxins A, B and E.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protein design, generative AI and biological security.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Recent Advances in the Detection of Food Toxins Using Mass Spectrometry.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Review
- Article
- Infant Botulism, Israel, 2007-2021.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Recent Developments in Botulinum Neurotoxins Detection.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Foodborne botulism: A brief review of cases transmitted by cheese products (Review).Biomedical reports · 2022Review
- Serotype Features of 17 Suspected Cases of Foodborne Botulism in China 2019-2022 Revealed by a Multiplex Immuno-Endopep-MS Method.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- New approach for the rational selection of markers to identify botulinum toxins.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Toxemia in Human Naturally Acquired Botulism.Toxins · 2020Review
- Alternative Methods for Testing Botulinum Toxin: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2020Review
- Proposed BoNT/A and /B Peptide Substrates Cannot Detect Multiple Subtypes in the Endopep-MS Assay.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2020Article
- Rapid Detection of Botulinum Neurotoxins-A Review.Toxins · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) are bacterial proteins that cause botulism, a life-threatening disease. The Endopep-MS assay permits rapid detection and serotypic differential diagnosis of BoNTs. The serotype-specific nature of this assay requires that each serum sample be aliquoted and individually tested, which in addition to the limited volume of clinical samples, especially in infants, points to the need for a multiplex assay. However, previous attempts to develop such an assay have been challenging, mainly due to inhibition of BoNT/A activity by the BoNT/E peptide substrate. BoNT/A and BoNT/E share the same native target protein as their substrate. We hypothesized that the steric interference between the BoNT/A and BoNT/E substrate peptides is responsible for the difficulty in simultaneously assaying these two toxins. To explore the basis for steric interference, we used the reported structure of BoNT/A in complex with SNAP-25 and modelled the structure of BoNT/E with SNAP-25. Following this thorough structural analysis, we designed a new peptide substrate for BoNT/A that maintained the assay sensitivity and allowed, for the first time, simultaneous detection of the three most abundant human botulinum serotypes. Adopting the multiplex assay will minimize the required sample volume and assay time for botulinum detection while maintaining the superior Endopep-MS assay performance.
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.