ReviewBiosafety and health2019
Virus inoculation and treatment regimens for evaluating anti-filovirus monoclonal antibody efficacy
Review in Biosafety and health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adeno-associated virus mediated expression of monoclonal antibody MR191 protects mice against Marburg virus and provides long-term expression in sheep.Gene therapy · 2025Article
- Taï Forest Virus Does Not Cause Lethal Disease in Ferrets.Microorganisms · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of monoclonal antibodies to treat disease caused by filoviruses, particularly Ebola virus, has risen steeply in recent years thanks to several key studies demonstrating their remarkable therapeutic potential. The increased drive to develop new and better monoclonal antibodies has necessarily seen an increase in animal model efficacy testing, which is critical to the pre-clinical development of any novel countermeasure. Primary and secondary efficacy testing against filoviruses typically makes use of one or more rodent models (mice, guinea pigs, and occasionally hamsters) or the more recently described ferret model, although the exact choice of model depends on the specific filovirus being evaluated. Indeed, no single small animal model exists for all filoviruses, and the use of any given model must consider the nature of that model as well as the nature of the therapeutic and the experimental objectives. Confirmatory evaluation, on the other hand, is performed in nonhuman primates (rhesus or cynomolgus macaques) regardless of the filovirus. In light of the number of different animal models that are currently used in monoclonal antibody efficacy testing, we sought to better understand how these efficacy tests are being performed by numerous different laboratories around the world. To this end, we review the animal models that are being used for antibody efficacy testing against filoviruses, and we highlight the challenge doses and routes of infection that are used. We also describe the various antibody treatment regimens, including antibody dose, route, and schedule of administration, that are used in these model systems. We do not identify any single best model or treatment regimen, and we do not advocate for field-wide protocol standardization. Instead, we hope to provide a comprehensive resource that will facilitate and enhance the continued pre-clinical development of novel monoclonal antibody therapeutics.
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.