Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

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

Serological assays for emerging coronaviruses: Challenges and pitfalls

Open access
Meyer, Benjamin, Drosten, Christian, Müller, Marcel A.·2014·Virus Research

Abstract

Highlights • Serological studies on SARS- and MERS-coronavirus (CoV) diagnostics were reviewed.• Different types of serological assays and variable antigens were compared.• Immunogenic epitopes of CoV spike proteins were less conserved than nucleocapsid proteins.• Use of spike proteins was found to be superior over nucleocapsid proteins.• Applicability of serological assays for analysis of animal sera was reviewed.

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.virusres.2014.03.018

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 410

Metadata

Authors
Meyer, B., Drosten, C., & Müller, M. A.
Venue
Virus Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
194
Pages
175-183
ISSN
0168-1702 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087762289
Cited by
410
References
4
FWCI
6.92
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: Serological assays for emerging coronaviruses: Challenges and pitfalls. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.virusres.2014.03.018
The paper
Meyer, B., Drosten, C., & Müller, M. A. (2014). Serological assays for emerging coronaviruses: Challenges and pitfalls. Virus Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2014.03.018

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.