ArticleiScience2025
Determination of resilience of a panel of broadly neutralizing mAbs to emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 generated using reverse genetics.
Article in iScience, 2025. 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.
- Identification and computational analysis of B-cell epitopes on the hemagglutinin protein of the H3N2 influenza virus.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- Development of a recombinant single-cycle influenza viral vector as an intranasal vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the diverse binding ability of SARS-CoV-2 variant RBDs to different antibody classes: a computational study.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Development of a Recombinant Single-Cycle Influenza Viral Vector as an Intranasal Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-like Betacoronaviruses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Identification of dominant peptide epitopes and antibody response to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, and its emerging variants might escape the immune responses generated by existing vaccines and therapeutic mAbs. Accordingly, rapid analysis of their possible neutralization phenotype is essential and can be facilitated by reverse genetics (RGs) systems to regenerate viruses with variant-specific substitutions. Here, we efficiently generate a panel of recent variants of SARS-CoV-2 (Omicron XBB.1.16, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1) using a substantially optimized circular polymerase extension reaction (CPER) RGs system. Neutralization potency was analyzed for mAbs targeting different regions of spike protein. mAbs P4-J15, C68.61, S2X259, and IY-2A IgG were able to neutralize all recent viruses. However, S309, which was previously used to treat infection and targets the outer face of RBD, showed ∼75-fold reduction in potency versus JN.1. Moreover, C68.59, which targets the SD1 region of the CTD, was unable to neutralize either BA.2.86 or JN1, which share the E554K substitution in SD1. CPER RGs system and microneutralization assays can be adopted as effective tools to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic mAbs against emerging variants in a time-responsive manner.
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.