Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32303235›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2020

Comparison of ELISA with electro-chemiluminescence technology for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of serological responses to vaccination.

Jessica S Bolton, Sidhartha Chaudhury, Sheetij Dutta, Scott Gregory, Emily Locke, Tony Pierson, Elke S Bergmann-Leitner

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Programmed cell death detection methods: a systematic review and a categorical comparison.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Jessica S BoltonImmunology Core, Malaria Biologics Branch, WRAIR, 503 Robert Grant Ave, 3W58, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Sidhartha ChaudhuryBiotechnology HPC Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, Silver Spring, MD, 21702, USA.
Sheetij DuttaDept. Structural Vaccinology, Malaria Biologics Branch, WRAIR, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Scott GregoryPATH/Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Washington, DC, 20001, USA.
Emily LockePATH/Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Washington, DC, 20001, USA.
Tony PiersonImmunology Core, Malaria Biologics Branch, WRAIR, 503 Robert Grant Ave, 3W58, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Elke S Bergmann-LeitnerImmunology Core, Malaria Biologics Branch, WRAIR, 503 Robert Grant Ave, 3W58, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA. elke.s.bergmann-leitner.civ@mail.mil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8571-8956

Funding

Military Infectious Disease Research Program F0580_19_WR_CS_)C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfiling immune responses induced by either infection or vaccination can provide insight into identification of correlates of protection. Furthermore, profiling of serological responses can be used to identify biomarkers indicative of exposure to pathogens. Conducting such immune surveillance requires readout methods that are high-throughput, robust, and require small sample volumes. While the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the classical readout method for assessing serological responses, the advent of multiplex assays has significantly increased the throughput and capacity for immunoprofiling. This report describes the development and assay performance (sensitivity, linearity of detection, requirement for multiple dilutions for each sample, intra- and inter-assay variability) of an electro-chemiluminescence (ECLIA)-based multiplex assay.

methodsThe current study describes the development of a multiplex ECLIA-based assay and characterizes the sensitivity, linear range, and inter- and intra-assay variability of the ECLIA platform and its agreement with the traditional ELISA. Special emphasis was placed on potential antigenic competition when testing closely related antigens in the multiplex format.

resultsMultiplexing of antigens in ECLIA provides significant practical benefits in terms of reducing sample volume requirements and experimental time. Beyond the practical advantages of multiplexing, the ECLIA provides superior assay performance when compared to the ELISA. Not only does ECLIA show good agreement with the ELISA assay, but the linear range of ECLIA is also sufficiently wide to permit single-dilution measurements of concentration without the need to do serial dilutions. The lack of antigenic competition allows the simultaneous testing of closely related antigens, such as plate antigens representing different alleles of the same protein, which can inform about cross-reactivities-or lack thereof-of serological responses.

conclusionThe advantages of the newly developed tool for assessing the antigen profiles of serological responses may ultimately lead to the identification of biomarkers associated with various disease stages and or protection against disease.

Indexed as

Blood Physiological PhenomenaVaccinationEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansLuminescent MeasurementsMalariaMalaria VaccinesSensitivity and SpecificitySerologyMalaria VaccinesAntigenAntigenic competitionElectro-chemiluminescenceELISAMultiplexSerologyVaccine

Identifiers

PMID32303235
PMCPMC7165447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.