Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37737980›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Phage Immunoprecipitation Sequencing (PhIP-Seq) for Analyzing Antibody Epitope Repertoires Against Food Antigens.

Ioanna Filimonova, Gabriel Innocenti, Thomas Vogl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ioanna Filimonova *Medical University of Vienna, Center for Cancer Research, Vienna, Austria.
Gabriel Innocenti *Medical University of Vienna, Center for Cancer Research, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas VoglMedical University of Vienna, Center for Cancer Research, Vienna, Austria. thomas.vogl@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While thousands of food and environmental allergens have been reported, conventional methods for allergy testing typically rely on measuring immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding against panels of dozens to hundreds of antigens. Beyond IgE, also the specificity of other Ig (sub-)classes such as IgG4, has gained interest because of a potential protective role toward allergy.Phage immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq) allows to study hundreds of thousands of rationally selected peptide antigens and to resolve binding specificities of different Ig classes. This technology combines synthetic DNA libraries encoding antigens, with the display on the surface of T7 bacteriophages and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for quantitative readouts. Thereby binding of entire Ig repertoires can be measured to detect the exact epitopes of food allergens and to study potential cross-reactivity.In this chapter, we provide a summary of both the key experimental steps and various strategies for analyzing PhIP-Seq datasets, as well as comparing the advantages and disadvantages of this methodology for measuring antibody responses against food antigens.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesHypersensitivityAllergensEpitopesHumansImidazolesImmunoglobulin EImmunoprecipitation2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridineAllergensEpitopesImidazolesImmunoglobulin EAntibody epitope repertoiresFood allergyHigh-throughput serologyMachine learningPhage immunoprecipitation sequencingPhIP-Seq

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.