ArticleCommunications medicine2022
A rapid antibody screening haemagglutination test for predicting immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.
Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The magnitude and cross reactivity of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in Sri Lankan children and association with the nutritional status.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Cross-reactive humoral and CD4Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- HAT-field: a cheap, robust and quantitative Point-of-care serological test for Covid-19.Biology methods & protocols · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of susceptibility to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) requires rapid screening tests for neutralising antibodies which provide protection. Methods: Firstly, we developed a receptor-binding domain-specific haemagglutination test (HAT) to Wuhan and VOC (alpha, beta, gamma and delta) and compared to pseudotype, microneutralisation and virus neutralisation assays in 835 convalescent sera. Secondly, we investigated the antibody response using the HAT after two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) vaccination. Sera were collected at baseline, three weeks after the first and second vaccinations from older (80-99 years, Results: Here we show that HAT antibodies highly correlated with neutralising antibodies (R = 0.72-0.88) in convalescent sera. Home-dwelling older individuals have significantly lower antibodies to the Wuhan strain after one and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine than younger adult vaccinees and naturally infected individuals. Moverover, a second vaccine dose boosts and broadens the antibody repertoire to VOC in naïve, not previously infected older and younger adults. Most (72-76%) older adults respond after two vaccinations to alpha and delta, but only 58-62% to beta and gamma, compared to 96-97% of younger vaccinees and 68-76% of infected individuals. Previously infected older individuals have, similarly to younger adults, high antibody titres after one vaccination. Conclusions: Overall, HAT provides a surrogate marker for neutralising antibodies, which can be used as a simple inexpensive, rapid test. HAT can be rapidly adaptable to emerging VOC for large-scale evaluation of potentially decreasing vaccine effectiveness.
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.