Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33139888›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Immunology2020

Measuring immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection: comparing assays and animal models.

David S Khoury, Adam K Wheatley, Mitchell D Ramuta, Arnold Reynaldi, Deborah Cromer, Kanta Subbarao, David H O'Connor, Stephen J Kent, Miles P Davenport

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

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

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David S KhouryKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2663-1551
Adam K WheatleyDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5593-9387
Mitchell D RamutaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-610X
Arnold ReynaldiKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-5542
Deborah CromerKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5276-5094
Kanta SubbaraoDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1713-3056
David H O'ConnorDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Stephen J KentDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8539-4891
Miles P DavenportKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. M.Davenport@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4751-1831
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

WNPRC Supplemental Request for Nonhuman Primate Enclosures to Equip HIV/AIDS-Related Research FacilitiesP51OD011106 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Dorota A. Grejner-Brzezinska · 2012 to 2026
$150.7M
Identifying Common T Cell Responses to Major Pathogens in Rhesus MacaquesR24OD017850 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI O'CONNOR, DAVID H. · 2014 to 2022
$5.8M
NIH HHS P51 OD011106NIH HHS R24 OD017850
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid scale-up of research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spawned a large number of potential vaccines and immunotherapies, accompanied by a commensurately large number of in vitro assays and in vivo models to measure their effectiveness. These assays broadly have the same end-goal - to predict the clinical efficacy of prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in humans. However, the apparent potency of different interventions can vary considerably between assays and animal models, leading to very different predictions of clinical efficacy. Complete harmonization of experimental methods may be intractable at the current pace of research. However, here we analyse a selection of existing assays for measuring antibody-mediated virus neutralization and animal models of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and provide a framework for comparing results between studies and reconciling observed differences in the effects of interventions. Finally, we propose how we might optimize these assays for better comparison of results from in vitro and animal studies to accelerate progress.

Indexed as

AnimalsCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentCOVID-19 Serological TestingDisease Models, AnimalHumansImmunoassayNeutralization TestsPre-Exposure Prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID33139888
PMCPMC7605490
OpenAlexW3096510866

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.