Back

Comparison of Four Assays That Measure Antibodies to Ebola Virus Glycoprotein

Malkjkovic Berry, I.; Farhat, S. B.; Callier, V.; Roy, C.; Dubois Cauwelaert, N.; Lhomme, E.; Chandrasekaran, P.; Jarra, A.; Gichini, H.; Anthony, S.; Bernaud, N.; Schwimmer, C.; Peeters, M.; Thaurignac, G.; Biai, N.; Kennedy, S. B.; Kieh, M.; Browne, S. M.; Fallah, M.; Mutombo, P.; Lokilo, E.; Mbaya, O. T.; Hensley, L.; Crozier, I.; Davey, R. T.; Levy, Y.; Ayouba, A.; Richert, L.; Lane, H. C.; Reilly, C.; Follmann, D. A.

2026-03-20 immunology
10.64898/2026.03.18.708022 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The accurate measurement of Ebola virus (EBOV)-specific antibody responses is crucial to assessing immunity induced by EBOV infection or vaccination. For this purpose, the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) anti-EBOV glycoprotein (GP1,2) ELISA is considered the "gold-standard". However, it has limitations such as high repeat-rates and variability, and low throughput. Here, we describe two new alternative assays: a Single-Molecule Assay Planar EBOV GP1,2 ELISA and a multiplexed EBOV GP1,2, EBOV nucleoprotein, and EBOV Viral Protein 40 Luminex assay, and compare these with two versions of the FANG ELISA. Samples were selected from participants receiving vaccine or placebo in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of two EBOV vaccines (PREVAIL 1), and a longitudinal cohort study of Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors and their close contacts (PREVAIL 3). All four assays were concordant in their measurements of anti-EBOV GP1,2-specific immunoglobulin G responses, allowing for the determination of conversion equations for antibody measurements across assays. In addition, all four showed a similar ability to distinguish vaccine recipients from placebo recipients and EVD survivors from their close contacts. Compared to the FANG assays, the Quanterix and Luminex assays had lower variability, lower repeat rates, and higher throughput, making them good alternatives for future studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.2%
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.4%
6
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.9%
8
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
9
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Vaccine: X
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
The Journal of Immunology
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
21
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
22
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
Emerging Microbes & Infections
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.6%
25
Immunology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
27
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%