MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196247605 · doi:10.3791/62488

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Receptor-Binding Domain Antibody using a HiBiT-Based Bioreporter

2021· article· en· W3196247605 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Rezaei, Abera Surendran, Ragunath Singaravelu, Taylor R. Jamieson, Parisa Taklifi, Joanna Poutou, Taha Azad, Carolina S. Ilkow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibodyVirologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)SerologyCoronavirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BiologyMedicineImmunologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for better serological detection methods to determine the epidemiologic impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The increasing number of SARS-CoV-2 infections raises the need for better antibody detection assays. Current antibody detection methods compromise sensitivity for speed or are sensitive but time-consuming. A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies target the receptor-binding domain (RBD), one of the primary immunogenic compartments of SARS-CoV-2. We have recently designed and developed a highly sensitive, bioluminescent-tagged RBD (NanoLuc HiBiT-RBD) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The following text describes the procedure to produce the HiBiT-RBD complex and a fast assay to evaluate the presence of RBD-targeting antibodies using this tool. Due to the durability of the HiBiT-RBD protein product over a wide range of temperatures and the shorter experimental procedure that can be completed within 1 h, the protocol can be considered as a more efficient alternative to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patient serum samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207