ArticleScientific reports2025
Retrovirus-based pseudotyped virus neutralisation assays overestimate neutralising activity in sera from participants receiving integrase inhibitors.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Association between helminth infection and impaired SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional study in Malawi.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a pseudotyped virus neutralization assay for quantification of anti-Lassa virus neutralizing antibodies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- HIV Virion Capturing Liposomes for Therapeutic Vaccination.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Characterising protective immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in urban and rural Malawi between February 2021 and April 2022.Scientific reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retroviral pseudotype-based virus neutralisation assays are widely used to estimate functional immunity, but may be unsuitable for testing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals receiving integrase inhibitor treatment. We evaluated these assays for measuring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) neutralisation in people living with HIV. SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation was assessed using HIV-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses in sera from a longitudinal Malawian cohort (n = 1,876), detecting neutralisation across timepoints in 10.5-54.5% of HIV-uninfected vs. 85.5-93.9% of HIV-infected participants (n = 96). HIV-infected sera were re-tested using vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses, estimating seroprevalence at 5.6-65.2%, suggesting HIV-based assays overestimate neutralisation. HIV-based VSV-glycoprotein(G) pseudoviruses confirmed non-specific inhibition in 75.0-87.9% of HIV-infected participants. HCV neutralisation was assessed in UK-based HCV patients (n = 100, n = 90 HIV-infected) using murine leukaemia virus (MLV)-based HCV pseudoviruses. Non-HCV-specific inhibition was detected in integrase inhibitor recipients. Median neutralisation of MLV(HCV) pseudoviruses was higher in integrase inhibitor recipients (71.8% vs. 21.3%). Testing HIV(SARS-CoV-2) and MLV(HCV) pseudoviruses against antiretroviral drugs showed interference by integrase inhibitors (specifically, dolutegravir). Isolating IgG from serum removed the interference by residual drugs. Retrovirus-based assays are therefore unsuitable for testing individuals receiving integrase inhibitors. Protective immunity to viruses has likely been over-reported in HIV prevalent populations.
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.