Cited by 116SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchAnimal Virus Infections StudiesSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Measuring immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection: comparing assays and animal models

Open access
Khoury, David S., Wheatley, Adam K., Ramuta, Mitchell D., Reynaldi, Arnold, Cromer, Deborah, Subbarao, Kanta, O’Connor, David H., Kent, Stephen J. +1 more·2020·Nature Reviews Immunology

Abstract

The rapid scale-up of research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spawned a large number of potential vaccines and immunotherapies, accompanied by a commensurately large number of in vitro assays and in vivo models to measure their effectiveness. These assays broadly have the same end-goal - to predict the clinical efficacy of prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in humans. However, the apparent potency of different interventions can vary considerably between assays and animal models, leading to very different predictions of clinical efficacy. Complete harmonization of experimental methods may be intractable at the current pace of research. However, here we analyse a selection of existing assays for measuring antibody-mediated virus neutralization and animal models of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and provide a framework for comparing results between studies and reconciling observed differences in the effects of interventions. Finally, we propose how we might optimize these assays for better comparison of results from in vitro and animal studies to accelerate progress.

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 · 10.1038/s41577-020-00471-1

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Animal models may not recapitulate all features of human infection but suggest the importance of looking beyond neutralizing antibodies for additional mechanisms of immune protection.

    “although animal models may not recapitulate all of the features of human infection49, they suggest the importance of looking beyond neutralizing antibodies for additional mechanisms of immune protection.”
  • The study focused primarily on assays using live SARS-CoV-2 virus to reduce potential variability from different pseudoviral constructs, with the exception of NVX-CoV2373 for which pseudovirus data were used.

    “We focused primarily on assays using live SARS-CoV-2 virus (to reduce the potential variability that might arise from different pseudoviral constructs23), with the exception of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine, for which only data from neutralisation assays using a spike-expressing pseudovirus were available.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khoury, D. S., Wheatley, A. K., Ramuta, M. D., Reynaldi, A., Cromer, D., Subbarao, K., O’Connor, D. H., Kent, S. J., & Davenport, M. P.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Davenport, Miles P.
Venue
Nature Reviews Immunology
Published
2020-11-02
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
727-738
ISSN
  • 1474-1733 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1741
OpenAlex
W3096510866
Cited by
115
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 35
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  • World Health Organization (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19)
  • Australian Government
  • National Institutes of Health (COVID-19, R24OD017850, P51OD011106)
  • Medical Research Council (COVID-19)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1136322, 1173027, 1173433, 1173528, 1177174, 1141921)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibody assay, assay harmonization, immunotherapy efficacy
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Serological Testing, COVID-19 Drug Treatment, Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Immunoassay, Neutralization Tests, Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis

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