ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Rapid Generation of In-House Serological Assays Is Comparable to Commercial Kits Critical for Early Response to Pandemics: A Case With SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishment of an Indirect ELISA Method for Detecting Multiple Virulence Factors from Porcine Diarrhea-RelatedVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Implementation of an Immunoassay Based on the MVA-T7pol-Expression System for Rapid Identification of Immunogenic SARS-CoV-2 Antigens: A Proof-of-Concept Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Potential use of endemic human coronaviruses to stimulate immunity against pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a multiplex electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to evaluate dry eye disease in rat tear fluids.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Utility of Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S in ascertaining post-vaccine neutralizing antibodies.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate and sensitive measurement of antibodies is critical to assess the prevalence of infection, especially asymptomatic infection, and to analyze the immune response to vaccination during outbreaks and pandemics. A broad variety of commercial and in-house serological assays are available to cater to different laboratory requirements; however direct comparison is necessary to understand utility. Materials and Methods: We investigate the performance of six serological methods against SARS-CoV-2 to determine the antibody profile of 250 serum samples, including 234 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, the majority with asymptomatic presentation (87.2%) at 1-51 days post laboratory diagnosis. First, we compare to the performance of two in-house antibody assays: (i) an in-house IgG ELISA, utilizing UV-inactivated virus, and (ii) a live-virus neutralization assay (PRNT) using the same Cambodian isolate as the ELISA. In-house assays are then compared to standardized commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescence immunoassays (Elecsys ECLIAs, Roche Diagnostics; targeting anti-N and anti-S antibodies) along with a flow cytometry based assay (FACS) that measures IgM and IgG against spike (S) protein and a multiplex microsphere-based immunoassay (MIA) determining the antibodies against various spike and nucleoprotein (N) antigens of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, hCoVs 229E, NL63, HKU1). Results: Overall, specificity of assays was 100%, except for the anti-S IgM flow cytometry based assay (96.2%), and the in-house IgG ELISA (94.2%). Sensitivity ranged from 97.3% for the anti-S ECLIA down to 76.3% for the anti-S IgG flow cytometry based assay. PRNT and in-house IgG ELISA performed similarly well when compared to the commercial ECLIA: sensitivity of ELISA and PRNT was 94.7 and 91.1%, respectively, compared to S- and N-targeting ECLIA with 97.3 and 96.8%, respectively. The MIA revealed cross-reactivity of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2-infected patients to the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-1, and the spike S1 domain of HKU1. Conclusion: In-house serological assays, especially ELISA and PRNT, perform similarly to commercial assays, a critical factor in pandemic response. Selection of suitable immunoassays should be made based on available resources and diagnostic needs.
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.