Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893470›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2021

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody by wild-type plaque reduction neutralization, microneutralization and pseudotyped virus neutralization assays.

Kevin R Bewley, Naomi S Coombes, Luc Gagnon, Lorna McInroy, Natalie Baker, Imam Shaik, Julien R St-Jean, Natalie St-Amant, Karen R Buttigieg, Holly E Humphries and 12 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 200 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

200 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 318 citations in OpenAlex.

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

140 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

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin R BewleyNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK. Kevin.Bewley@phe.gov.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-6734
Naomi S CoombesNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9631-6875
Luc GagnonNexelis, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Lorna McInroyNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Natalie BakerNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Imam ShaikNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Julien R St-JeanNexelis, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Natalie St-AmantNexelis, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Karen R ButtigiegNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Holly E HumphriesNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Kerry J GodwinNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Emily BruntNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Lauren AllenNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Stephanie LeungNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Phillip J BrownNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6367-6495
Elizabeth J PennNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Kelly ThomasNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0348-654X
Greg KulnisNexelis, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Bassam HallisNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Miles CarrollNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Simon FunnellNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4254-2751
Sue CharltonNational Infection Service, Public Health England, Salisbury, UK.
Public Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virus neutralization assays measure neutralizing antibodies in serum and plasma, and the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) is considered the gold standard for measuring levels of these antibodies for many viral diseases. We have developed procedures for the standard PRNT, microneutralization assay (MNA) and pseudotyped virus neutralization assay (PNA) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The MNA offers advantages over the PRNT by reducing assay time, allowing increased throughput and reducing operator workload while remaining dependent upon the use of wild-type virus. This ensures that all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigens are present, but Biosafety Level 3 facilities are required. In addition to the advantages of MNA, PNA can be performed with lower biocontainment (Biosafety Level 2 facilities) and allows for further increases in throughput. For each new vaccine, it is critical to ensure good correlation of the neutralizing activity measured using PNA against the PRNT or MNA. These assays have been used in the development and licensure of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca; Oxford University) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines and are critical for demonstrating bioequivalence of future vaccines.

Indexed as

Ad26COVS1Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansNeutralization TestsSARS-CoV-2Time FactorsAd26COVS1Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33893470
OpenAlexW3155000349

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.