Qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific antibody avidity by lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM antibody assay

  1. Arantxa Valdivia
  2. Ignacio Torres
  3. Dixie Huntley
  4. María J. Alcaraz
  5. Eliseo Albert
  6. Javier Colomina
  7. Josep Ferrer
  8. Arturo Carratalá
  9. David Navarro

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Knowledge of the precise timing of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may be of clinical and epidemiological relevance. The presence of low‐avidity IgGs has conventionally been considered an indicator of recent infection. Here, we carried out qualitative assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific antibody avidity using an urea (6M) dissociation test performed on a lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM device. We included a total of 76 serum specimens collected from 57 COVID‐19 patients, of which 39 tested positive for both IgG and IgM and 37 only for IgG. Sera losing IgG reactivity after urea treatment (n = 28) were drawn significantly earlier ( P  = .04) after onset of symptoms than those which preserved it (n = 48). This assay may be helpful to estimate the time of acquisition of infection in patients with mild to severe COVID‐19.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/jmv.26344
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.23.20138016: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.23.20138016v1 on medRxiv