ArticleJournal of immunological methods2019
Development and validation of different indirect ELISAs for MERS-CoV serological testing.
Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effective and Time-Saving Multiplex-Beads Immunoassay Method to Detect Humoral Immune Responses Against Respiratory Infections.Journal of immunology research · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing the performance of commercial serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.IJID regions · 2024Article
- Economical and Easily Obtainable Tools to Manually Develop Lateral Flow Immunoassay Strips.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Time Course Evaluation of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays Based on Cell-Free Recombinant Proteins for Detection of Antibodies against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Amplifying Lateral Flow Assay Signals for Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Specific Antibodies.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2022Article
- The next-generation coronavirus diagnostic techniques with particular emphasis on the SARS-CoV-2.Journal of medical virology · 2021Review
- Current methods for diagnosis of human coronaviruses: pros and cons.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Review
- Product of natural evolution (SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2); deadly diseases, from SARS to SARS-CoV-2.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 S1 and N-based serological assays reveal rapid seroconversion and induction of specific antibody response in COVID-19 patients.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- High SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 patients.The Journal of infection · 2020Article
- Seroprevalence of MERS-CoV in healthy adults in western Saudi Arabia, 2011-2016.Journal of infection and public health · 2020Article
- Middle East respiratory syndrome.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Review
- Qualitative and Quantitative Determination of MERS-CoV S1-Specific Antibodies Using ELISA.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of MERS-CoV Neutralizing Antibodies in Sera Using Live Virus Microneutralization Assay.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Article
- The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Humoral Immunogenicity and Efficacy of a Single Dose of ChAdOx1 MERS Vaccine Candidate in Dromedary Camels.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2012, MERS-CoV has caused up to 2220 cases and 790 deaths in 27 countries with Saudi Arabia being the most affected country with ~83.1% of the cases and ~38.8% local death rate. Current serological assays such as microneutralization (MN), plaque reduction neutralization, immunofluorescence, protein microarray or pseudoparticle neutralization assays rely on handling of live MERS-CoV in high containment laboratories or need for expensive and special equipment and reagents and highly trained personnel which represent a technical hurdle for most laboratories in resource-limited MERS-CoV endemic countries. Here, we developed, compared and evaluated three different indirect ELISAs based on MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein (N), spike (S) ectodomain (amino acids 1-1297) and S1 subunit (amino acids 1-725) and compared them with MN assay. The developed ELISAs were evaluated using large number of confirmed seropositive (79 samples) and seronegative (274 samples) MERS-CoV human serum samples. Both rS1- and rS-ELISAs maintained high sensitivity and specificity (≥90%) across a wider range of OD values compared to rN-ELISA. Moreover, rS1- and rS-based ELISAs showed better agreement and correlation with MN assay in contrast to rN-ELISA. Collectively, our data demonstrate that rS1-ELISA and rS-ELISA are more reliable than rN-ELISA and represent a suitable choice for seroepidemiological testing and surveillance in MERS-CoV endemic regions.
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.