Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33275613›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A comparison of non-magnetic and magnetic beads for measuring IgG antibodies against Plasmodium vivax antigens in a multiplexed bead-based assay using Luminex technology (Bio-Plex 200 or MAGPIX).

Ramin Mazhari, Jessica Brewster, Rich Fong, Caitlin Bourke, Zoe S J Liu, Eizo Takashima, Takafumi Tsuboi, Wai-Hong Tham, Matthias Harbers, Chetan Chitnis and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validation of serological markers of recent exposure toThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. AdvancingMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Assessment of IgG3 as a serological exposure marker forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  19. SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen Serology Assay.Methods and protocols · 2021
    Article
  20. Diagnostic Methods for Non-Falciparum Malaria.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
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

18 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Ramin MazhariPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica BrewsterPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Rich FongCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Caitlin BourkePopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Zoe S J LiuPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Eizo TakashimaDivision of Malaria Research, Proteo-Science Center, Ehime University, Matsuyama, Japan.
Takafumi TsuboiDivision of Malaria Research, Proteo-Science Center, Ehime University, Matsuyama, Japan.
Wai-Hong ThamPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Matthias HarbersCellFree Sciences Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Japan.
Chetan ChitnisDepartment of Parasites & Insect Vectors, Malaria Parasite Biology and Vaccines, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Julie HealerPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Maria Ome-KaiusPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jetsumon SattabongkotMahidol Vivax Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
James KazuraCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6390-634X
Leanne J RobinsonPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher KingCase Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Ivo MuellerPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Rhea J LongleyPopulation Health and Immunity Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4510-5602
The University of Melbourne · AUCase Western Reserve University · USEhime University · JPInstitut Pasteur · FRWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research · AUBurnet Institute · AUCellFree Sciences (Japan) · JPMahidol University · TH

Funding

Discovery & validation of novel P. vivax antigens for identification and monitoriR01AI104822 · NIAID · MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY · PI PRACHUMSRI, JETSUMON · 2013 to 2017
$672k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI104822Wellcome Trust 208693/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiplexed bead-based assays that use Luminex® xMAP® technology have become popular for measuring antibodies against proteins of interest in many fields, including malaria and more recently SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. There are currently two formats that are widely used: non-magnetic beads or magnetic beads. Data are lacking regarding the comparability of results obtained using these two types of beads, and for assays run on different instruments. Whilst non-magnetic beads can only be run on flow-based instruments (such as the Luminex® 100/200™ or Bio-Plex® 200), magnetic beads can be run on both these and the newer MAGPIX® instruments. In this study we utilized a panel of purified recombinant Plasmodium vivax proteins and samples from malaria-endemic areas to measure P. vivax-specific IgG responses using different combinations of beads and instruments. We directly compared: i) non-magnetic versus magnetic beads run on a Bio-Plex® 200, ii) magnetic beads run on the Bio-Plex® 200 versus MAGPIX® and iii) non-magnetic beads run on a Bio-Plex® 200 versus magnetic beads run on the MAGPIX®. We also performed an external comparison of our optimized assay. We observed that IgG antibody responses, measured against our panel of P. vivax proteins, were moderately-strongly correlated in all three of our comparisons (pearson r>0.5 for 18/19 proteins), however higher amounts of protein were required for coupling to magnetic beads. Our external comparison indicated that results generated in different laboratories using the same coupled beads are also highly comparable (pearson r>0.7), particularly if a reference standard curve is used.

Indexed as

Antigens, ProtozoanCell SeparationChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunomagnetic SeparationMagnetic PhenomenaMalariaMalaria, VivaxMaleMicrospheresPapua New GuineaPlasmodium vivaxProtozoan ProteinsAntigens, ProtozoanImmunoglobulin GProtozoan Proteins

Identifiers

PMID33275613
PMCPMC7717507
OpenAlexW3106763010

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.