Back

Development and optimization of self-collected, field stable, saliva-based immunoassays for scalable epidemiological surveillance of pathogen-specific immunity

Bahr, L. E.; Lu, J. Q.; Buddhari, D.; Hunsawong, T.; Rapheal, E.; Greco, P.; Ware, L.; Klick, M.; Farmer, A.; Middleton, F.; Thomas, S. J.; Anderson, K.; Waickman, A.

2026-03-06 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.03.05.26347729 medRxiv
Show abstract

Serological surveillance is fundamental to infectious disease research and informed public-health decision making. Immunoassays used in the study of pathogen-specific immunity have historically relied on the collection of venous blood. While critical for many public-health applications, this sample collection method is invasive and resource intensive. The costs and logistical barriers associated with venous blood collection are exacerbated in resource-limited regions, and the shift to less invasive sampling methods would increase sample availability for pathogen surveillance and study of pathogen-specific immunity. To this end, we have developed and optimized a self-collected, saliva-based immunoassay capable of quantifying pathogen-specific antibody binding in saliva samples. Using samples collected from geographically and epidemiologically diverse regions of the world, we compared antigen-specific IgG levels in paired plasma and saliva samples. We observed that levels of IgG against multiple pathogens of public health concern - including SARS-CoV-2 and dengue virus (DENV) - were highly correlated in plasma and swab-collected saliva. In addition, the decay of maternally derived antibodies in saliva samples collected from infants was readily observed using this immunoassay, demonstrating the assays sensitivity and potential for use in measuring antibody kinetics. We posit that this assay represents a climate stable, non-invasive tool that can aid in the surveillance and study of pathogen-specific immunity across a broad range of public-health indications.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.