Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A robust, high-throughput assay to determine the phagocytic activity of clinical antibody samples

Open access
Ackerman, Margaret E., Moldt, Brian, Wyatt, Richard T., Dugast, Anne-Sophie, McAndrew, Elizabeth, Tsoukas, Stephen, Jost, Stephanie, Berger, Christoph T., Sciaranghella, Gaia, Liu, Qingquan, Irvine, Darrell J., Burton, Dennis R., Alter, Galit·2011·Journal of Immunological Methods

Abstract

Phagocytosis can be induced via the engagement of Fcγ receptors by antibody-opsonized material. Furthermore, the efficiency of antibody-induced effector functions has been shown to be dramatically modulated by changes in antibody glycosylation. Because infection can modulate antibody glycans, which in turn modulate antibody functions, assays capable of determining the induction of effector functions rather than neutralization or titer provide a valuable opportunity to more fully characterize the quality of the adaptive immune response. Here we describe a robust and high-throughput flow cytometric assay to define the phagocytic activity of antigen-specific antibodies from clinical samples. This assay employs a monocytic cell line that expresses numerous Fc receptors: including inhibitory and activating, and high and low affinity receptors—allowing complex phenotypes to be studied. We demonstrate the adaptability of this high-throughput, flow-based assay to measure antigen-specific antibody-mediated phagocytosis against an array of viruses, including influenza, HIV, and dengue. The phagocytosis assay format further allows for simultaneous analysis of cytokine release, as well as determination of the role of specific Fcγ-receptor subtypes, making it a highly useful system for parsing differences in the ability of clinical and vaccine induced antibody samples to recruit this critical effector function.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jim.2010.12.016

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Ackerman, M. E., Moldt, B., Wyatt, R. T., Dugast, A.-S., McAndrew, E., Tsoukas, S., Jost, S., Berger, C. T., Sciaranghella, G., Liu, Q., Irvine, D. J., Burton, D. R., & Alter, G.
Venue
Journal of Immunological Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
366
Issue
1-2
Pages
8-19
ISSN
0022-1759 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081305632
Cited by
450
References
4
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A robust, high-throughput assay to determine the phagocytic activity of clinical antibody samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jim.2010.12.016
The paper
Ackerman, M. E., Moldt, B., Wyatt, R. T., Dugast, A.-S., McAndrew, E., Tsoukas, S., Jost, S., Berger, C. T., Sciaranghella, G., Liu, Q., Irvine, D. J., Burton, D. R., & Alter, G. (2011). A robust, high-throughput assay to determine the phagocytic activity of clinical antibody samples. Journal of Immunological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2010.12.016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.