ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022
Bacterial ligands as flexible and sensitive detectors in rapid tests for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microfluidic Organ-Chips and Stem Cell Models in the Fight Against COVID-19.Circulation research · 2023Review
- Handling Detection Limits of Multiplex Lateral Flow Immunoassay by Choosing the Order of Binding Zones.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Investigation of the "Antigen Hook Effect" in Lateral Flow Sandwich Immunoassay: The Case of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus Detection.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Silent Antibodies Start Talking: Enhanced Lateral Flow Serodiagnosis with Two-Stage Incorporation of Labels into Immune Complexes.Biosensors · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) is widely employed as point-of-care tests (POCT) for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. The accuracy of LFIA largely depends on the quality of the immunoreagents used. Typical LFIAs to reveal the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) employ anti-human immunoglobulin (hIG) antibodies and recombinant viral antigens, which usually are unstable and poorly soluble. Broad selective bacterial proteins, such as Staphylococcal protein A (SpA) and Streptococcal protein G (SpG) can be considered alternatives to anti-hIG to increase versatility and sensitivity of serological LFIAs because of their high binding capacity, interspecies reactivity, and robustness. We developed two colorimetric LFA devices including SpA and SpG linked to gold nanoparticles (GNP) as detectors and explored the use of a specific, stable, and soluble immunodominant fraction of the nucleocapsid protein from SARS-CoV-2 as the capturing agent. The optimal amount of SpA-GNP and SpG-GNP conjugates and the protein-to-GNP ratios were defined through a full factorial experimental design to maximize the diagnostic sensitivity of the LFIAs. The new LFA devices were applied to analyze 105 human serum samples (69 positive and 36 negatives according to reference molecular diagnostic methods). The results showed higher sensitivity (89.9%, 95% CI 82.7-97.0) and selectivity (91.7%, 82.6-100) for the SpA-based compared to the SpG-based LFA. In addition, 18 serum samples from cats and dogs living with COVID-19 patients were analyzed and 14 showed detectable levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, thus illustrating the flexibility of the SpA- and SpG-based LFAs.
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.