ArticleEmerging microbes & infections2025
Exploring the standardization of human nasal antibody measurements.
Article in Emerging microbes & infections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mucosal immunity and vaccine development.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Respiratory mucosal immunity: Biological functions, diseases, prevention and therapy.Genes & diseases · 2026Review
- Exploring the standardized detection and sampling methods of human nasal SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgA.Frontiers in immunology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mucosal immunity is crucial for preventing the infection and transmission of respiratory viruses. Nasal antibody is inversely correlated with a lower risk of infection with respiratory viruses. However, the current reference standard for nasal antibody assessment is serum-based, mainly consisting of monomeric IgG and IgA. The applicability of serum-derived standards for assessing nasal antibodies, consisting mostly of dimeric or polymeric secretory IgA (sIgA), remains unvalidated. Herein, we first proved that the sera-derived standard was not applicable for assessing nasal antibodies. Using a non-homologous standard as a calibrator introduced systematic error up to 10 times, which did not benefit the understanding of mucosal antibody response. Therefore, we attempted to develop two candidate standards (CS1, CS2) using nasal mucosal lining fluids (NMLFs) collected from SARS-CoV-2 Omicron convalescents or intranasal vaccine recipients, and CS3 using a sIgA monoclonal antibody. CS2 exhibited broad-spectrum binding activity against 12 SARS-CoV-2 strains, including all tested Omicron subvariants. A collaborative study conducted by seven laboratories demonstrated that CS2 improved the harmonization of inter-laboratory variability (pre-standardization geometric coefficients of variance, 14-314%; post-standardization, 3-35%). Using CS2 ensured an accurate assessment of nasal antibodies. Thus, CS2 was established as a national standard for evaluating nasal SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (Lot: 300052-202401, 1000 U/mL). Our work provides a benchmark for evaluating mucosal vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and inspires new avenues for developing new reference standards for other mucosal vaccines.
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.