ArticleMalaria journal2026
Development of flow cytometry bead-based opsonophagocytic assays to dissect cell-mediated functional antibody responses to malaria vaccines.
Article in Malaria journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria remains a major global health burden. Vaccines targeting the Circumsporozoite protein represent a significant advancement in malaria control and have demonstrated meaningful public health impact. However, no validated correlate of protection has yet been established, making it critical to assess antibody functionality alongside antigen-specific antibody quantitation to evaluate vaccine candidates. Antibody-dependent phagocytosis is one such mechanism that contributes to parasite clearance, which can be modelled using cell lines. While THP-1 (monocyte-like) assays have been described, HL-60 (neutrophil-like) models are less established in the malaria field. Here, we aimed to develop and characterize a PfCSP repeat region (NANP6) bead-based opsonophagocytic assay using differentiated HL-60 cells, to adapt a THP-1 assay, and to assess IgG subclass- and FcγR-dependent differences between these in vitro models. Ultimately, our goal is to demonstrate the potential application of these assays for exploratory assessment of human clinical samples.
methodsFluorescent NANP6-coated beads were opsonized with recombinant IgG1-2-3-4 monoclonal antibodies (identical binding domain, different Fc) or human sera from an RTS, S/AS01E trial. Opsonized beads were incubated with model effector cells, phagocytosis was quantified by flow cytometry, and EC50 values were derived using four-parameter logistic regression. FcγR-blocking experiments and assay performance (precision, dilution linearity, sensitivity) were evaluated.
resultsBoth assays discriminated phagocytic potency across IgG subclasses, revealing that FcγR dependence differs by subclass and between the two cell models. Both assays were successfully adapted to human sera, demonstrating robust performance with high precision, strong dilution linearity, and high sensitivity across samples with varying anti-CSP antibody levels. These characteristics support their suitability for reproducible assessment of functional antibody responses in clinical samples.
conclusionTwo opsonophagocytic assays recapitulating monocyte-like and neutrophil-like effector pathways were developed and characterized. Both demonstrated precise, sensitive, and quantitative measurement of antibody-dependent phagocytosis in human sera, while capturing distinct functional differences between the models, supporting their use as exploratory tools to evaluate functional antibody responses in clinical samples.
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.