ArticleVirology journal2024
Evaluation of three alternative methods to the plaque reduction neutralizing assay for measuring neutralizing antibodies to dengue virus serotype 2.
Article in Virology journal, 2024. 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.
- Functional antibody responses and protection against symptomatic dengue.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Pseudovirus-Based Neutralization Assays as Customizable and Scalable Tools for Serological Surveillance and Immune Profiling.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Spatiotemporal prevalence and characterization of the lineage I insect-specific flavivirus, Quang Binh virus, isolated fromThe Journal of general virology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Antioxidant Properties and Biological Effects of a Novel Combined Barberry Root-Propolis Extract on HEK293T Cells.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDengue is a global public health challenge which requires accurate diagnostic methods for surveillance and control. The gold standard for detecting dengue neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), which is both labor-intensive and time-consuming. This study aims to evaluate three alternative approaches, namely, the MTT-based (or (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) microneutralization assay, the xCELLigence real-time cell analysis (RTCA), and the immuno-plaque assay-focus reduction neutralization test (iPA-FRNT).
methodsTwenty-two residual serum samples were tested for DENV-2 nAbs using all four assays at three neutralization endpoints of 50%, 70% and 90% inhibition in virus growth. For each neutralization endpoint, results were compared using linear regression and correlation analyses. Test performance characteristics were further obtained for iPA-FRNT using 38 additional serum samples.
resultsPositive correlation of DENV-2 neutralization titers for the MTT-based microneutralization assay and the PRNT assay was only observed at the neutralization endpoint of 50% (r = 0.690). In contrast, at all three neutralization end points, a linear trend and positive correlation of DENV-2 neutralization titers for the xCELLigence RTCA and the PRNT assays were observed, yielding strong or very strong correlation (r = 0.829 to 0.967). This was similarly observed for the iPA-FRNT assay (r = 0.821 to 0.916), which also offered the added advantage of measuring neutralizing titers to non-plaque forming viruses.
conclusionThe xCELLigence RTCA and iPA-FRNT assays could serve as suitable alternatives to PRNT for dengue serological testing. The decision to adopt these methods may depend on the laboratory setting, and the utility of additional applications offered by these technologies.
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.