MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231318786 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv.12899672

Screening Antibodies Raised Against the Spike Glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 to Support the Development of Rapid Antigen Assays

2020· preprint· en· W4231318786 on OpenAlexaff
Jason L. Cantera, David M. Cate, Allison Golden, Roger Peck, Lorraine Lillis, Gonzalo J. Domingo, Eileen Murphy, Bryan C. Barnhart, Caitlin E. Anderson, Luis F. Alonzo, Veronika Glukhova, Gleda Hermansky, Brianda Barrios-Lopez, Ethan Spencer, Samantha Kuhn, Zeba Islam, Benjamin Grant, Lucas Kraft, Karine Hervé, Valentine de Puyraimond, Yuri Hwang, Puneet Dewan, Bernhard H. Weigl, Kevin P. Nichols, David S. Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsAbCellera (Canada)
FundersBill and Melinda Gates FoundationAdvanced Research Projects AgencyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsImmunoassayAntibodyGlycoproteinAntigenVirologyMolecular biologyBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is a highly conserved surface protein and as such may represent a good target for immunoassay detection. We screened a variety of antibodies that were reactive to the S glycoprotein in a highly sensitive liquid immunoassay format and also on paper-based or lateral flow assay (LFA) to assess their analytical performance. Our findings included significant variation in performance when using different sources of S antigen. We identified several antibody pairs that had an LOD of below 10 pg/mL in the liquid immunoassay format with the lowest being 3 pg/mL. The antibodies were highly specific to SARS-Cov-2 based on cross reactivity screening with other human CoVs. The LFA screening found some different optimal antibody pairs from the pool of candidate antibodies used but a several antibodies were observed to have high performance with either immunoassay format.</p><br>

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207