ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring cell-free assays for COVID-19 serosurvey.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seroprevalence of West Nile virus among blood donors in mainland France, 2021 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Article
- A Live-Cell Imaging-Based Fluorescent SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assay by Antibody-Mediated Blockage of Receptor Binding Domain-ACE2 Interaction.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025Article
- Article
- Nationwide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic periods in Lao PDR.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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Serosurveys to monitor immunity toward COVID-19 in the population are primarily performed using an ELISA to screen samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, followed by confirmation by a virus neutralization test, which is considered the Gold Standard. However, virus neutralization test may not be feasible for some laboratories because of the requirement for specific facilities and trained personnel. In an attempt to address this limitation, we evaluated three cell-free methods as potential alternatives for assessing SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in human population from plasma. We report the establishment of two inhibition ELISAs designed to detect anti-Spike RBD IgG antibodies and a microsphere quantitative suspension array technology assay, based on the Luminex xMAP platform, to measure the presence of antibodies against various SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including anti-RBD. These methods were also compared to a commercial chemiluminescent immunoassay designed for anti-RBD antibodies detection and to the combined ELISA + virus neutralization test strategy. These cell-free assays performed equally to estimate the percentage of positive and negative samples and could be used to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human population, at least in cohort with high-expected prevalence, without the use of seroneutralization assay.
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.