ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
A highly sensitive bead-based flow cytometric competitive binding assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Bead-Based Screening Platform for Identifying Monoclonal Antibodies That Disrupt PD-1/PD-L1 Interactions.Journal of immunology research · 2026Article
- Advances in Surrogate Neutralization Tests for High-Throughput Screening and the Point-of-Care.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
- Automated and virus variant-programmable surrogate test qualitatively compares to the gold standard SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay.Npj viruses · 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
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (nAb) is critical for assessing the immunity levels after virus infection or vaccination. As fast, cost-effective alternatives to viral infection-based assays, competitive binding (CB) assays were developed to quantitate nAb by monitoring the ability of sera to inhibit the binding of viral spike (S) protein to the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Herein, we established a bead-based flow cytometric CB assay and tested the detection performance of six combination models, i.e. immobilized ACE2 and soluble Fc-tagged S1 subunit of S protein (iACE2/S1-Fc), immobilized ACE2 and soluble Fc-tagged receptor binding domain (RBD) of S protein (iACE2/RBD-Fc), immobilized S1 and soluble Fc-tagged ACE2 (iS1/ACE2-Fc), immobilized S1 and soluble His-tagged ACE2 (iS1/ACE2-His), immobilized RBD and soluble Fc-tagged ACE2 (iRBD/ACE2-Fc), and immobilized RBD and soluble His-tagged ACE2 (iRBD/ACE2-His). Using SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and sera of convalescent COVID-19 patients and vaccinated subjects, the combination models iACE2/RBD-Fc, iACE2/S1-Fc and iS1/ACE2-His were identified to be able to specifically detect SARS-CoV-2 nAb, among which iACE2/RBD-Fc model showed the highest sensitivity, superior to a commercial SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) ELISA kit. Further studies demonstrated that the sensitivity and specificity of CB assays were affected by the tag of ACE2, type of spike and method of measuring binding rate between ACE2 and spike. Moreover, the iACE2/RBD-Fc model showed good performance in detecting kinetic development of nAb against both the prototype SARS-CoV-2 strain and an omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in people immunized by an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and the results of iACE2/RBD-Fc model are correlated well with those of live virus-based and pseudovirus-based neutralization tests, demonstrating the potential to be developed into a highly sensitive, specific, versatile and high-throughput method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nAb in clinical practice.
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.