ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparing methods for immobilizing HIV-1 SOSIPs in ELISAs that evaluate antibody binding.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterologous combinations of VSV-GP and native-like trimers elicit autologous Tier 2 HIV antibodies in rabbits.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Design and characterization of HIV-1 vaccine candidates to elicit antibodies targeting multiple epitopes.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and Research Methods of Protein Modification in Virus Entry.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Multilayered HIV-1 resistance in HSPCs through CCR5 Knockout and B cell secretion of HIV-inhibiting antibodies.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used to evaluate binding of broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) and polyclonal sera to native-like HIV-1 Env SOSIPs. Methods for immobilizing SOSIPs on plates differ, which can lead to variable or, in some cases, misleading results. Three methods used to immobilize SOSIPs were compared to determine how antigen immobilization methods affect Env conformation and ELISA results. HIV-1 SOSIPs were directly coated on polystyrene plates, captured by a monoclonal antibody against a C-terminal affinity tag, or randomly biotinylated and coated on a streptavidin plate. Binding of bNAbs with known epitopes were compared for each immobilization method. Binding of bNAbs targeting the V1V2, V3, CD4 binding site, and gp120/gp41 interface was comparable for all antigen immobilization methods. However, directly coated HIV-1 SOSIP ELISAs showed detectable binding of 17b, a CD4-induced antibody that binds a V3 epitope that is concealed on closed prefusion Env trimers in the absence of added CD4, whereas antibody-immobilized and randomly biotinylated Env-coated ELISAs did not show detectable binding of 17b in the absence of CD4. We conclude direct coating of HIV-1 SOSIPs on ELISA plates can result in exposure of CD4-induced antibody epitopes, suggesting disruption of Env structure and exposure of epitopes that are hidden in the closed, prefusion trimer.
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.