ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Agreement and differential use of laboratory methods for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in experimentally infected animals.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunisation efficacy of a stabilised SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein in two geriatric animal models.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rodents are widely used for the development of COVID-19-like animal models, the virological outcome being determined through several laboratory methods reported in the literature. Our objective was to assess the agreement between methods performed on different sample types from 342 rodents experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 (289 golden Syrian hamsters and 53 K18-hACE2 mice). Our results showed moderate agreement between methods detecting active viral replication, and that increasing viral loads determined by either RT-qPCR or infectious viral titration corresponded to increasing immunohistochemical scores. The percentage of agreement between methods decreased over experimental time points, and we observed poor agreement between RT-qPCR results and viral titration from oropharyngeal swabs. In conclusion, RT-qPCR and viral titration on tissue homogenates are the most reliable techniques to determine the presence and replication of SARS-CoV-2 in the early and peak phases of infection, and immunohistochemistry is valuable to evaluate viral distribution patterns in the infected tissues.
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.