ArticleAnalytical chemistry2022
Rational Design and Development of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Diagnostics by Immunoprecipitation-Targeted Proteomics.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities and Challenges of Multiomics for Discovery and Monitoring of Human Pathogens.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- ProPickML: Advancing Clinical Diagnostics with Automated Peak Picking in Label-Free Targeted Proteomics.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Research Trends in Proteomic Studies Using Serum from COVID-19 Patients: A Bibliometric Analysis.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- The Impact of Serum/Plasma Proteomics on SARS-CoV-2 Diagnosis and Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Faradaic Impedimetric Immunosensor for Label-Free Point-of-Care Detection of COVID-19 Antibodies Using Gold-Interdigitated Electrode Array.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Redefining serological diagnostics with immunoaffinity proteomics.Clinical proteomics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current design of serological tests utilizes conservative immunoassay approaches and is focused on fast and convenient assay development, throughput, straightforward measurements, and affordability. Limitations of common serological assays include semiquantitative measurements, cross-reactivity, lack of reference standards, and no differentiation between human immunoglobulin subclasses. In this study, we suggested that a combination of immunoaffinity enrichments with targeted proteomics would enable rational design and development of serological assays of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. Immunoprecipitation-targeted proteomic assays allowed for sensitive and specific measurements of NCAP_SARS2 protein with a limit of detection of 313 pg/mL in serum and enabled differential quantification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody isotypes (IgG, IgA, IgM, IgD, and IgE) and individual subclasses (IgG1-4 and IgA1-2) in plasma and saliva. Simultaneous evaluation of the numerous antigen-antibody subclass combinations revealed a receptor-binding domain (RBD)-IgG1 as a combination with the highest diagnostic performance. Further validation revealed that anti-RBD IgG1, IgG3, IgM, and IgA1 levels were significantly elevated in convalescent plasma, while IgG2, IgG4, and IgA2 were not informative. Anti-RBD IgG1 levels in convalescent (2138 ng/mL) vs negative (95 ng/mL) plasma revealed 385 ng/mL as a cutoff to detect COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Immunoprecipitation-targeted proteomic assays will facilitate improvement and standardization of the existing serological tests, enable rational design of novel tests, and offer tools for the comprehensive investigation of immunoglobulin subclass cooperation in immune response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.