Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31040343›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Comparative analysis of serologic cross-reactivity using convalescent sera from filovirus-experimentally infected fruit bats.

Amy J Schuh, Brian R Amman, Tara S Sealy, Timothy D Flietstra, Jonathan C Guito, Stuart T Nichol, Jonathan S Towner

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy J SchuhViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Brian R AmmanViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Tara S SealyViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Timothy D FlietstraViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Jonathan C GuitoViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Stuart T NicholViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
Jonathan S TownerViral Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA. jit8@cdc.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6473-3049
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the exception of Reston and Bombali viruses, the marburgviruses and ebolaviruses (family Filoviridae) cause outbreaks of viral hemorrhagic fever in sub-Saharan Africa. The Egyptian rousette bat (ERB) is a natural reservoir host for the marburgviruses and evidence suggests that bats are also natural reservoirs for the ebolaviruses. Although the search for the natural reservoirs of the ebolaviruses has largely involved serosurveillance of the bat population, there are no validated serological assays to screen bat sera for ebolavirus-specific IgG antibodies. Here, we generate filovirus-specific antisera by prime-boost immunization of groups of captive ERBs with all seven known culturable filoviruses. After validating a system of filovirus-specific indirect ELISAs utilizing infectious-based virus antigens for detection of virus-specific IgG antibodies from bat sera, we assess the level of serological cross-reactivity between the virus-specific antisera and heterologous filovirus antigens. This data is then used to generate a filovirus antibody fingerprint that can predict which of the filovirus species in the system is most antigenically similar to the species responsible for past infection. Our filovirus IgG indirect ELISA system will be a critical tool for identifying bat species with high ebolavirus seroprevalence rates to target for longitudinal studies aimed at establishing natural reservoir host-ebolavirus relationships.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAnimalsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralChiropteraCross ReactionsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleFiloviridaeFiloviridae InfectionsImmune SeraMaleViral ProteinsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralImmune SeraViral Proteins

Identifiers

PMID31040343
PMCPMC6491471
OpenAlexW2943395042

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.