ArticleViruses2024
A Global Collaborative Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenicity Across 15 Laboratories.
Article in Viruses, 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.
- Reconciliation of titer differences between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays.Journal of virology · 2026Article
- Monitoring viral evolution and epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 during 2022-2023 using Integrated Genomic Surveillance.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Meeting Report: Fourth Correlates of Protection for Next Generation Influenza Vaccines.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2026Article
- Decoding Host Cell-Virus Interactions: Translational Advances in Antiviral Immunity and Therapeutics (4th Edition).Viruses · 2026Article
- A system to rapidly develop a bunyavirus pseudotyped virus neutralisation assay for pandemic preparedness.NPJ vaccines · 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
56 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Setting up a global SARS-CoV-2 surveillance system requires an understanding of how virus isolation and propagation practices, use of animal or human sera, and different neutralisation assay platforms influence assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity. In this study, with the contribution of 15 independent laboratories across all WHO regions, we carried out a controlled analysis of neutralisation assay platforms using the first WHO International Standard for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (source: NIBSC). Live virus isolates (source: WHO BioHub or individual labs) or spike plasmids (individual labs) for pseudovirus production were used to perform neutralisation assays using the same serum panels. When comparing fold drops, excellent data consistency was observed across the labs using common reagents, including between pseudovirus and live virus neutralisation assays (RMSD of data from mean fold drop was 0.59). Utilising a Bayesian model, geometric mean titres and assay titre magnitudes (offsets) can describe the data efficiently. Titre magnitudes were seen to vary largely even for labs within the same assay group. We have observed that overall, live Microneutralisation assays tend to have the lowest titres, whereas Pseudovirus Neutralisation have the highest (with a mean difference of 3.2 log2 units between the two). These findings are relevant for laboratory networks, such as the WHO Coronavirus Laboratory Network (CoViNet), that seek to support a global surveillance system for evolution and antigenic characterisation of variants to support monitoring of population immunity and vaccine composition policy.
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.