ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
Development and validation of a rapid and easy-to-perform point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Viral Diagnostics: Principles, Strategies, Clinical Challenges, and Future Directions.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Current and future opportunities for lateral flow immunoassay strips based on tunable plasmonic properties of gold nanoparticles.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- Aptamer Paper-Based Fluorescent Sensor for Determination of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibody-labelled gold nanoparticles synthesized by laser ablation to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen spike.ADMET & DMPK · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostics continue to be a high priority during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Although vaccines are now widely available, early detection and consistent transmission control provide ideal means to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nucleic acid-based real-time PCR tests are widely acknowledged as the gold standard for reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. These tests are based on detecting viable or nonviable viral nucleic acids. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is an alternative and ideal target for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in the early phase of infection, but point-of-care kits to detect the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are limited. Here we describe a rapid and convenient method based on Lateral Flow Immunoassay (LFIA) to detect SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, including SARS-CoV-2 variants (A.23.1, B.1.1.1, 1.617.2, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, N501Y, R.1, P681H, P3, UK, and South African) within 5 to 10 minutes. We generated highly specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against rationally designed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Matched pair mAbs were selected by epitope mapping and employed as antigen capture reagents by spotting onto a nitrocellulose membrane and as detector reagents by conjugation with colloidal gold nanoparticles. We evaluated the performance of the LFIA using recombinant spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and several SARS-CoV-2 variants. The specificity of the LFIA was assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and related human coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1, and HCoV-NL63) and an FDA-approved respiratory pathogens (RP) panel. The assay exhibited 98% specificity and acceptable performance with respect to the minimum limit of detection (25 ng/test) in validation tests. This new LFIA provides improved performance for the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly for home monitoring and in situations with limited access to molecular methods.
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.