ArticleViruses2021
Development and Validation of Confirmatory Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Antibody ELISAs to Identify Infected Animals in Vaccinated Populations.
Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Foot-and-mouth disease virus non-structural protein antibody detection: from DIVA serology to repeated-epitope design and multi-species field surveillance.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of Serotype-Specific Blocking ELISA for the Detection of Anti-FMDV O/A/Asia1/SAT2 Antibodies.Viruses · 2024Article
- Evaluation of commercial ELISA kits' diagnostic specificity for FAST diseases in wild animals.The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research · 2024Article
- Estimation of foot-and-mouth disease virus sero-prevalence rates using novel computational approach for the susceptible bovine population in India during the period 2008-2021.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A review of foot-and-mouth disease in Ethiopia: epidemiological aspects, economic implications, and control strategies.Virology journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)-endemic countries, vaccination is commonly used to control the disease, whilst in FMD-free countries, vaccination is considered as an option, in addition to culling the infected and in contact animals. FMD vaccines are mainly comprised of inactivated virions and stimulate protective antibodies to virus structural proteins. In contrast, infection with FMD virus leads to virus replication and additional antibody responses to viral nonstructural proteins (NSP). Therefore, antibodies against NSPs are used to differentiate infection in vaccinated animals (DIVA), in order to estimate the prevalence of infection or its absence. Another advantage of NSP antibody tests is that they detect FMD infection in the field, irrespective of the serotypes of virus in circulation. In cattle, the NSP tests that target the 3ABC polyprotein provides the highest sensitivity, detecting up to 90% of vaccinated animals that become carriers after exposure to infection, with a specificity of around 99%. Due to insufficient diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, detection of a low level of infection is difficult at the population level with a high degree of confidence. The low level of non-specific responses can be overcome by retesting samples scored positive using a second confirmatory test, which should have at least comparable sensitivity to the first test. In this study, six in-house tests were developed incorporating different NSP antigens, and validated using bovine sera from naïve animals, field cases and experimentally vaccinated and/or infected animals. In addition, two (short and long incubation) new commercial NSP tests based on 3ABC competitive blocking ELISAs (ID Screen
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.