ArticleEBioMedicine2026
Nucleoprotein and glycoprotein based serological assays for detection of Marburg virus infections.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMarburg virus disease (MVD) is a rare but highly fatal zoonotic illness. Current serological tools are limited by their reliance on glycoprotein (GP)-based antigens or Marburg virus infected cell lysates, which cannot distinguish natural infection induced immune responses from GP-based vaccines. This diagnostic gap complicates the detection of missed cases particularly in areas of high vaccination coverage.
methodsWe developed and validated two complementary assays: a nucleoprotein C-terminal tail (NPct) Mix-and-Read (MR) assay and a recombinant GP1,2ΔTM ELISA. Serum samples used for validation were collected 6-9 months after the 2024 Rwanda MVD outbreak from RT-PCR-confirmed recovered patients (n = 36) and uninfected contacts (n = 46). Assay validation included additional serum controls from pre-outbreak Rwandan samples, Ebola virus disease recovered patients, and Rousettus aegyptiacus bats experimentally infected with MARV. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to assess clinical accuracy.
findingsThe MARV anti-NPct MR assay demonstrated near-perfect discrimination between cases and controls with an area under the curve (AUC) = 0.996 (95% CI, 0.990-1.000), and yielding performance of 94.4% clinical sensitivity (95% CI, 81.9-99.0%) and 99.7% specificity (95% CI, 98.1-100.0%), and no cross-reactivity with Ebola convalescent sera. The MARV GP ELISA achieved 94.4% clinical sensitivity (95% CI, 81.9-99.0%) and 100% specificity (95% CI, 92.3-100%) with an AUC 0.973 (95% CI, 0.922-1.000). Both assays produced concordant results for all samples tested. In experimentally infected bats, the MARV anti-NPct MR assay achieved 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity.
interpretationThe MARV anti-NPct MR assay provides a rapid, high-throughput, species-agnostic tool expected to differentiate natural infection from vaccine-induced immunity, addressing a critical gap in the current MVD diagnostic pipeline. Its robust validation in the largest cohort of recovered patients to date and applicability to reservoir hosts highlight its broad utility for outbreak response, follow-up care, and ecological studies.
fundingThis work was supported by funding from US Centers for Disease Control and prevention, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and Rwanda Biomedical Centre.
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.