Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

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

Comparison of Antibody Repertoires against Staphylococcus aureus in Healthy Individuals and in Acutely Infected Patients

Open access
Dryla, Agnieszka, Prustomersky, Sonja, Gelbmann, Dieter, Hanner, Markus, Bettinger, Edith, Kocsis, Béla, Kustos, Tamás, Henics, Tamás, Meinke, Andreas, Nagy, Eszter·2005·Clinical and Vaccine Immunology

Abstract

The management of staphylococcal diseases is increasingly difficult with present medical approaches. Preventive and therapeutic vaccination is considered to be a promising alternative; however, little is known about immune correlates of protection and disease susceptibility. To better understand the immune recognition of Staphylococcus aureus by the human host, we studied the antistaphylococcal humoral responses in healthy people in comparison to those of patients with invasive diseases. In a series of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analyses performed using 19 recombinant staphylococcal cell surface and secreted proteins, we measured a wide range of antibody levels, finding a pronounced heterogeneity among individuals in both donor groups. The analysis revealed marked differences in the antibody repertoires of healthy individuals with or without S. aureus carriage, as well as in those of patients in the acute phase of infection. Most importantly, we identified antigenic proteins for which specific antibodies were missing or underrepresented in infected patients. In contrast to the well-described transient nature of disease-induced antistaphylococcal immune response, it was demonstrated that high-titer antistaphylococcal antibodies are stable for years in healthy individuals. In addition, we provide evidence obtained on the basis of opsonophagocytic and neutralizing activity in vitro assays that circulating antistaphylococcal serum antibodies in healthy donors are functional. In light of these data we suggest that proper serological analysis comparing the preexisting antibody repertoires of hospitalized patients with different outcomes for nosocomial staphylococcal infections could be extremely useful for the evaluation of candidate vaccine antigens in addition to protection data generated with animal models.

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 · 10.1128/cdli.12.3.387-398.2005

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 183

Metadata

Authors
Dryla, A., Prustomersky, S., Gelbmann, D., Hanner, M., Bettinger, E., Kocsis, B., Kustos, T., Henics, T., Meinke, A., & Nagy, E.
Venue
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
Published
2005-03
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
387-398
ISSN
  • 1556-679X (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6811
OpenAlex
W2124254554
Cited by
183
References
4
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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: Comparison of Antibody Repertoires against Staphylococcus aureus in Healthy Individuals and in Acutely Infected Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cdli.12.3.387-398.2005
The paper
Dryla, A., Prustomersky, S., Gelbmann, D., Hanner, M., Bettinger, E., Kocsis, B., Kustos, T., Henics, T., Meinke, A., & Nagy, E. (2005). Comparison of Antibody Repertoires against Staphylococcus aureus in Healthy Individuals and in Acutely Infected Patients. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1128/cdli.12.3.387-398.2005

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.