ArticleScientific reports2019
Characterization of canine anti-mouse antibodies highlights that multiple strategies are needed to combat immunoassay interference.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case report: False-positive B-type natriuretic peptide results with the cyclic amplified fluorescence immunoassay.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Generation of canine neutralizing antibodies against canine parvovirus by single B cell antibody technology.Archives of virology · 2024Article
- Endocrine and dog factors associated with semen quality.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Hormone Immunoassay Interference: A 2021 Update.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Prevalence of heterophilic antibodies in serum samples from horses in an equine hospital, and elimination of interference using chicken IgY.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunoassays are widely used for detection and quantification of analytes in biological samples, but are vulnerable to analytical errors caused by interfering sample substances. Of particular interest are endogenous anti-animal antibodies that may bind to the immunoassay antibodies and cause erroneous test results. This phenomenon is a hazard to patient safety in both human and veterinary medicine. Here, we demonstrate that anti-mouse antibodies in dogs bind selectively to different regions of the murine IgG molecule, cross-react with IgG from different species, and consist of all major antibody classes present in canine serum (IgA, IgG and IgM). The antibody characteristics varied among individuals and their prevalence differed between two dog breeds. The selective binding to different IgG regions suggests that the antibodies might not originate from immunization through exposure to mice or other species. These findings show that canine anti-mouse antibodies are highly heterogeneous in nature and therefore require a combination of strategies to be counteracted.
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.