Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29890762›Full record

ReviewToxins2018

Basics of Antibody Phage Display Technology.

Line Ledsgaard, Mogens Kilstrup, Aneesh Karatt-Vellatt, John McCafferty, Andreas H Laustsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

126 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Line LedsgaardDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby DK-2800, Denmark. Lineledsgaard@hotmail.com.
Mogens KilstrupDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby DK-2800, Denmark. mki@bio.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-3900-723X
Aneesh Karatt-VellattIONTAS Ltd., Cambridgeshire CB22 3EG, United Kingdom. akv@iontas.co.uk.
John McCaffertyIONTAS Ltd., Cambridgeshire CB22 3EG, United Kingdom. jmc@iontas.co.uk.
Andreas H LaustsenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby DK-2800, Denmark. ahola@bio.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-6918-5574

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibody discovery has become increasingly important in almost all areas of modern medicine. Different antibody discovery approaches exist, but one that has gained increasing interest in the field of toxinology and antivenom research is phage display technology. In this review, the lifecycle of the M13 phage and the basics of phage display technology are presented together with important factors influencing the success rates of phage display experiments. Moreover, the pros and cons of different antigen display methods and the use of naïve versus immunized phage display antibody libraries is discussed, and selected examples from the field of antivenom research are highlighted. This review thus provides in-depth knowledge on the principles and use of phage display technology with a special focus on discovery of antibodies that target animal toxins.

Indexed as

Cell Surface Display TechniquesAnimalsAntibodiesAntigensBacteriophage M13HumansAntibodiesAntigensantibody discoveryM13 phagephage displayrecombinant antivenomtoxinology

Identifiers

PMID29890762
PMCPMC6024766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.