Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34377760›Full record

ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies seroprevalence in dogs from France using ELISA and an automated western blotting assay.

Younes Laidoudi, Youssouf Sereme, Hacène Medkour, Stéphanie Watier-Grillot, Pierre Scandola, Jacques Ginesta, Virginie Andréo, Claire Labarde, Loïc Comtet, Philippe Pourquier and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Younes LaidoudiAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Youssouf SeremeAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Hacène MedkourAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Stéphanie Watier-GrillotFrench Military Health Service, Animal Epidemiology Expert Group, Tours, France.
Pierre ScandolaAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Jacques Ginesta24 Veterinary Group, Suippes, France.
Virginie Andréo26 Veterinary Group, Gramat, France.
Claire LabardeFrench Military Health Service, Animal Epidemiology Expert Group, Tours, France.
Loïc ComtetInnovative Diagnostics, Grabels, France.
Philippe PourquierInnovative Diagnostics, Grabels, France.
Didier RaoultAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Jean-Lou MariéFrench Military Health Service, Animal Epidemiology Expert Group, Tours, France.
Bernard DavoustAix Marseille Univ, IRD, AP-HM, MEPHI, Marseille, France.
Méditerranée Infection Foundation · FRService de Santé des Armées · FRAix-Marseille Université · FRArmée de terreInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs are occasionally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, developing few or no clinical signs. Epidemiological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in dogs requires testing to distinguish it from other canine coronaviruses. In the last year, significant advances have been made in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, allowing its surveillance in both human and animal populations. Here, using ELISA and automated western blotting (AWB) assays, we performed a longitudinal study on 809 apparently healthy dogs from different regions of France to investigate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There were three main groups: (i) 356 dogs sampled once before the pandemic, (ii) 235 dogs sampled once during the pandemic, and (iii) 218 dogs, including 82 dogs sampled twice (before and during the pandemic), 125 dogs sampled twice during the pandemic and 11 dogs sampled three times (once before and twice during the pandemic). Using ELISA, seroprevalence was significantly higher during the pandemic [5.5% (25/453)] than during the pre-pandemic period [1.1% (5/449)]. Among the 218 dogs sampled twice, at least 8 ELISA-seroconversions were observed. ELISA positive pre-pandemic sera were not confirmed in serial tests by AWB, indicating possible ELISA cross-reactivity, probably with other canine coronaviruses. A significant difference was observed between these two serological tests (Q = 88,

Indexed as

COVID-19DogEpidemiosurveillanceOne healthSARS-CoV-2Serology

Identifiers

PMID34377760
PMCPMC8327341
OpenAlexW3183677265

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.