ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018
A high throughput neutralization test based on GFP expression by recombinant rabies virus.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influencing factors and prediction of neutralizing antibodies in post-exposure rabies vaccine recipients.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Fatal Human Rabies Infection With Suspected Host-Mediated Failure of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Following a Recognized Zoonotic Exposure-Minnesota, 2021.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Review
- Establishment and clinical validation of an in-cell-ELISA-based assay for the rapid quantification of Rabies lyssavirus neutralizing antibodies.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Generation of a recombinant rabies virus expressing green fluorescent protein for a virus neutralization antibody assay.Journal of veterinary science · 2021Article
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
The effectiveness of rabies vaccination in both humans and animals is determined by the presence of virus neutralizing antibodies (VNAs). The Rapid Fluorescent Focus Inhibition Test (RFFIT) is the method traditionally used for detection and quantification of VNAs. It is a functional in vitro test for assessing the ability of antibodies in serum to bind and prevent infection of cultured cells with rabies virus (RABV). The RFFIT is a labor intensive, low throughput and semi-quantitative assay performed by trained laboratorians. It requires staining of RABV-infected cells by rabies specific fluorescent antibodies and manual quantification of fluorescent fields for titer determination. Although the quantification of fluorescent fields observed in each sample is recorded, the corresponding images are not stored or captured to be used for future analysis. To circumvent several of these disadvantages, we have developed an alternative, automated high throughput neutralization test (HTNT) for determination of rabies VNAs based on green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression by a recombinant RABV and compared with the RFFIT. The HTNT assay utilizes the recombinant RABV ERA variant expressing GFP with a nuclear localization signal (NLS) for efficient quantification. The HTNT is a quantitative method where the number of RABV-infected cells are determined and the images are stored for future analysis. Both RFFIT and HTNT results correlated 100% for a panel of human and animal positive and negative rabies serum samples. Although, the VNA titer values are generally agreeable, HTNT titers tend to be lower than that of RFFIT, probably due to the differences in quantification methods. Our data demonstrates the potential for HTNT assays in determination of rabies VNA titers.
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.