ArticleJCI insight2024
Clinical assays rapidly predict bacterial susceptibility to monoclonal antibody therapy.
Article in JCI insight, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Bacterial Infections: A Broad Review of the Field.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Review
- Article
- Antivirulence drugs against Acinetobacter baumannii: where do they stand?World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Evaluating antibody mediated opsonophagocytosis of bacteria via lab protocol: RAW 264.7 cell phagocytosis assay.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With antimicrobial resistance (AMR) emerging as a major threat to global health, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have become a promising means to combat difficult-to-treat AMR infections. Unfortunately, in contrast with standard antimicrobials, for which there are well-validated clinical laboratory methodologies to determine whether an infecting pathogen is susceptible or resistant to a specific antimicrobial drug, no assays have been described that can inform clinical investigators or clinicians regarding the clinical efficacy of a MAb against a specific pathogenic strain. Using Acinetobacter baumannii as a model organism, we established and validated 2 facile clinical susceptibility assays, which used flow cytometry and latex bead agglutination, to determine susceptibility (predicting in vivo efficacy) or resistance (predicting in vivo failure) of 1 newly established and 3 previously described anti-A. baumannii MAbs. These simple assays exhibited impressive sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility, with clear susceptibility breakpoints that predicted the in vivo outcomes in our preclinical model with excellent fidelity. These MAb susceptibility assays have the potential to enable and facilitate clinical development and deployment of MAbs that generally target the surface of microbes.
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.