ArticlePloS one2024
Higher correlation between neutralizing antibodies and surrogate neutralizing or binding antibodies in COVID-19 patients than vaccine recipients.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Measuring Humoral Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review of Serological Assays.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Temporal correlations between RBD-ACE2 blocking and binding antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants in CoronaVac-vaccinated individuals and their persistence in COVID-19 patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Seroepidemiological Observational Study in Total and Neutralizing Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Among Primary Care Patients in Crete, Greece.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study determined the seropositive rates and levels of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in 50 patients and 108 vaccinees using microneutralization test (MNT), surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). MNT, as the reference method, employed living clade S and Delta viruses to measure neutralizing (NT) antibodies, while sVNT employed wild type strain and Delta receptor-binding domains (RBD) as the test antigens to measure sVNT antibodies. CMIA and ECLIA employed only one version of RBD to measure the binding antibodies. Our study performed S gene sequencing of the test virus to exclude undesired mutants that might lead to changes in antibody levels in MNT assay. We showed that spike protein amino acid sequences of our Delta virus contained 13 amino acid changes, with 3 related to the reduced neutralization. The MNT assay showed a significant reduction in seropositive rates and antibody levels in the patients' sera when the Delta variant replaced clade S as the test virus. In contrast, the seropositive rates determined by sVNT assay using wild type strain RBD and Delta RBD were non-significantly different, suggesting that sVNT assay could not identify the difference between the antigenicity of wild type RBD and Delta RBD. Furthermore, the correlation between the levels of NT and sVNT antibodies was moderate with the patients' sera but modest with the post-vaccination sera. The seropositive rates in the patients, as determined by CMIA or ECLIA, were not different from the MNT assay using clade S, but not Delta, as the test virus. In all analyses, the correlations between the antibody levels measured by MNT and the other 3 assays were modest to moderate, with the r-values of 0.3500-0.7882.
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.