ArticleViruses2025
Comparison of Three Commercial ELISA Kits for Detection of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 in Serum Samples from Different Animal Species.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serological Survey of SARS-CoV-2 in Wild Canids in Serbia: First Report in Red Foxes and Golden Jackals.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Bovine coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in livestock: marked host-species differences and insights from the first large-scale neutralization survey.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An In-House ELISA for Anti-Porcine Circovirus Type 2d (PCV2d) IgG: Analytical Validation and Serological Correlation.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, significantly impacting global health, economies, and social stability. In February 2020, the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections in animals were documented, highlighting the potential risks posed by regular human-animal interactions in facilitating viral transmission. In consequence, it is essential to validate surveillance methods for SARS-CoV-2 in animals. In the present study, 101 sera from different animal species (36 cats, 41 dogs, 4 ferrets, 10 wild boar, 6 domestic goats, and 4 lions) were tested using three different ELISA kits to evaluate humoral responses against SARS-CoV-2. ELISA results were compared and correlated with a pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT), considered as the reference assay. ELISA-1, targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) of SARS-CoV-2, exhibited the highest diagnostic performance, and proved to be a reliable tool for initial screenings in high-throughput animal studies. In contrast, ELISA-2 (also targeting RBD nAbs) and ELISA-3 (targeting nucleoprotein antibodies) demonstrated lower sensitivity for detecting seropositive animals.
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.