MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Serological Hendra Virus Diagnostics Using an Indirect ELISA-Based DIVA Approach with Recombinant Hendra G and N Proteins

2022· article· en· W4281723009 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne Balkema‐Buschmann, Kerstin Fischer, Leanne McNabb, Sandra Diederich, Nagendrakumar B. Singanallur, Ute Ziegler, Günther M. Keil, Peter D. Kirkland, Maren Penning, Balal Sadeghi, Glenn A. Marsh, Jennifer Barr, Axel Colling

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroorganisms · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement ÉconomiquesCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsHendra VirusVirologyDivaBiologySerologyAntibodyRecombinant DNAVirusOutbreakImmunologyEbola virus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the identification of Hendra virus (HeV) infections in horses in Australia in 1994, more than 80 outbreaks in horses have been reported, and four out of seven spillover infections in humans had a fatal outcome. With the availability of a subunit vaccine based on the HeV-Glycoprotein (HeV-G), there is a need to serologically Differentiate the Infected from the Vaccinated Animals (DIVA). We developed an indirect ELISA using HeV-G expressed in Leishmania tarentolae and HeV-Nucleoprotein (HeV-N) expressed in recombinant baculovirus-infected insect cells as antigens. During evaluation, we tested panels of sera from naïve, vaccinated and infected horses that either originated from a Hendra-virus free region, or had been pre-tested in validated diagnostic tests. Our data confirm the reliability of this approach, as HeV-N-specific antibodies were only detected in sera from infected horses, while HeV-G-specific antibodies were detected in infected and vaccinated horses with a high level of specificity and sensitivity. Given the excellent correlation of data obtained for German and Australian HeV-negative horses, we assume that this test can be applied for the testing of horse serum samples from a variety of geographical regions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroorganismsSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207