ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Impact of inactivation methods on biosafety and antigen reactivity of Brucella melitensis from the perspective of Astral-DIA proteomics based on antibody immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective Brucella inactivation is essential for safe vaccine development, diagnostics, and sample handling, particularly in resource-limited regions without high-level biosafety facilities. This study evaluated heat (80°C/95°C, 10-20 min) and formaldehyde (0.4%/0.6%, 48-72 h) inactivation using the Rev.1 vaccine strain and three Brucella melitensis field isolates from Gansu (GS-XG1, GS-SN2, GS-MQ3). All field isolates were collected from a single geographic region (Gansu, China), which should be considered when interpreting the broader geographic generalizability of the findings. Complete inactivation of Rev.1 was achieved by heating at 80°C/95°C for 20 min or 0.6% formaldehyde for 48-72 h, with superior immunoreactivity compared to phenol inactivation as confirmed by ELISA and Western Blot. Field isolates showed greater resistance, surviving 80°C for 20 min and 0.4% formaldehyde for 72 h, requiring stricter conditions (95°C for 20 min or 0.6% formaldehyde for 72 h). Antibody immunoprecipitation-based Orbitrap Astral DIA proteomics covered ~60% of the proteome (~2,000/3,300 proteins) and identified 256, 311, and 318 differentially detected proteins (DDPs) for 80°C vs. 95°C heat, 48 h vs. 72 h formaldehyde, and heat vs. formaldehyde comparisons, respectively. These DDPs reflect inactivation-induced changes in protein detectability due to denaturation, aggregation, or cross-linking, rather than de novo gene expression (confirmed by metabolic inhibition assays showing complete absence of metabolic activity). Gene Ontology and KEGG analyses revealed that heat inactivation enriched cellular structure proteins while downregulating metabolic pathways, with 95°C potentially disrupting conformational epitopes. Formaldehyde treatment for 48 h better preserved soluble antigens and epitopes of ribosomal and regulatory proteins, whereas 72 h treatment caused greater cell envelope disruption. Protein-protein interaction networks indicated that heat inactivation enhanced immunoreactivity of membrane and stress proteins, making it suitable for targeted epitope studies, while formaldehyde preserved broader epitopes, benefiting whole-cell vaccines and multi-epitope screening. Inactivation protocols should be tailored to strain characteristics and intended applications. Astral-DIA proteomics provides molecular insights into antigenicity preservation, guiding future research on protein stability and epitope dynamics for improved brucellosis control.
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.