Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30940836›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Functional detection of botulinum neurotoxin serotypes A to F by monoclonal neoepitope-specific antibodies and suspension array technology.

Laura von Berg, Daniel Stern, Diana Pauly, Stefan Mahrhold, Jasmin Weisemann, Lisa Jentsch, Eva-Maria Hansbauer, Christian Müller, Marc A Avondet, Andreas Rummel and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Botulism in the Highlands: Understanding the High-Altitude Effect.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025
    Review
  5. Targeted degradation of α-Synuclein using an evolved botulinum toxin protease.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura von BergBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.
Daniel SternBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9057-4283
Diana PaulyBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.
Stefan MahrholdInstitut für Toxikologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Jasmin WeisemannInstitut für Toxikologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Lisa JentschBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.
Eva-Maria HansbauerBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.
Christian MüllerSpiez Laboratory, Federal Office for Civil Protection, Spiez, 3700, Switzerland.
Marc A AvondetSpiez Laboratory, Federal Office for Civil Protection, Spiez, 3700, Switzerland.
Andreas RummelInstitut für Toxikologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, 30625, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0645-1641
Martin B DornerBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany.
Brigitte G DornerBiological Toxins (ZBS 3), Centre for Biological Threats and Special Pathogens, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, 13353, Germany. DornerB@rki.de.
Robert Koch Institute · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DESpiez Laboratory · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) are the most potent toxins known and cause the life threatening disease botulism. Sensitive and broad detection is extremely challenging due to the toxins' high potency and molecular heterogeneity with several serotypes and more than 40 subtypes. The toxicity of BoNT is mediated by enzymatic cleavage of different synaptic proteins involved in neurotransmitter release at serotype-specific cleavage sites. Hence, active BoNTs can be monitored and distinguished in vitro by detecting their substrate cleavage products. In this work, we developed a comprehensive panel of monoclonal neoepitope antibodies (Neo-mAbs) highly specific for the newly generated N- and/or C-termini of the substrate cleavage products of BoNT serotypes A to F. The Neo-mAbs were implemented in a set of three enzymatic assays for the simultaneous detection of two BoNT serotypes each by monitoring substrate cleavage on colour-coded magnetic Luminex-beads. For the first time, all relevant serotypes could be detected in parallel by a routine in vitro activity assay in spiked serum and food samples yielding excellent detection limits in the range of the mouse bioassay or better (0.3-80 pg/mL). Therefore, this work represents a major step towards the replacement of the mouse bioassay for botulism diagnostics.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalBotulinum ToxinsBotulinum Toxins, Type AClostridium botulinumEpitopesLimit of DetectionMiceMicroarray AnalysisSerogroupAntibodies, MonoclonalBotulinum ToxinsBotulinum Toxins, Type AEpitopes

Identifiers

PMID30940836
PMCPMC6445094
OpenAlexW2933327924

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.