Antibody response using six different serological assays in a completely PCR-tested community after a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak—the CoNAN study

  1. Sebastian Weis
  2. André Scherag
  3. Michael Baier
  4. Michael Kiehntopf
  5. Thomas Kamradt
  6. Steffi Kolanos
  7. Juliane Ankert
  8. Stefan Glöckner
  9. Oliwia Makarewicz
  10. Stefan Hagel
  11. Christina Bahrs
  12. Aurelia Kimmig
  13. Hans Proquitté
  14. Joel Guerra
  15. Dagmar Rimek
  16. Bettina Löffler
  17. Mathias W. Pletz
  18. Thomas Hotz
  19. Local Cooperation Partners
  20. Petra Enders
  21. Renate Koch
  22. Steffen Mai
  23. Matthias Ullrich
  24. Cora Richert
  25. Cornelius Eibner
  26. Bettina Meinung
  27. Kay Stötzer
  28. Julia Köhler
  29. Hans Cipowicz
  30. Christine Pinkwart
  31. Michael Bauer
  32. Petra Dickmann
  33. Annika Licht
  34. Juliane Scholz
  35. Wibke Wetzker
  36. Anita Hartung
  37. Daniel Weiss
  38. Lara Thieme
  39. Gabi Hanf
  40. Clara Schnizer
  41. Jasmin Müller
  42. Jennifer Kosenkow
  43. Franziska Röstel
  44. Nico Andreas
  45. Raphaela Marquardt
  46. Stefanie Deinhardt-Emmer
  47. Sebastian Kuhn

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154112: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: After informed consent, questionnaires, blood samples and pharyngeal washes were directly taken at the study site.
    IRB: Ethics review, data protection and data management: The study was conducted according to the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the institutional ethics committees of the Jena University Hospital and the respective data protection commissioner (approval number 2020-1776) and the ethics committee of the Thuringian chamber of physicians.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Objectives and outcomes: The primary objective was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 antibody status (sero-conversion rate) of the population of Neustadt-am-Rennsteig with a defined distance to the end of the quarantine period.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was performed with six different quantification methods, of which two were enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and four were chemiluminescence-based immunoassays (CLIA/CMIA).
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    , SARS-CoV-2 IgG CMIA kit (Abbott, Chicago, USA) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 kit (Roche, Basel Switzerland).
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Our study has several limitations: i.) our study was a population-based cohort study. We were able to recruit 71% of the community population. However, 29% of the population did not participate for unknown reasons which could introduce a bias in the assessment; ii.) the study was carried out six weeks after the end of the 14-day quarantine. This could have missed a number of participants that had a rapidly waning antibody response and iii.) there was no baseline of the antibody status before the quarantine as some participants might have been exposed earlier during the pandemic.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.009
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154112: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementAfter informed consent, questionnaires, blood samples and pharyngeal washes were directly taken at the study site.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variableInterestingly, two of them; a 55-year old male and a 73-year old male had been tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Objectives and outcomes The primary objective was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 antibody status (sero-conversion rate) of the population of Neustadt-am-Rennsteig with a defined distance to the end of the quarantine period.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was performed with six different quantification methods, of which two were enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and four were chemiluminescence-based immunoassays (CLIA/CMIA).
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    None of these had anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies.
    anti-SARS-CoV2
    suggested: None
    Only 8·4% of the tested population were seropositive for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in which 6·2% (38/610) had proven SARS-CoV-2 infection, indicating a low rate of asymptomatic cases.
    anti SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: (Abcam Cat# ab273074, AB_2847846)
    The correlation between antibodies and protection against COVID-19 is further complicated by evidence suggesting antibody-induced disease enhancement in other coronavirus infections including SARS 26.
    antibody-induced disease
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG CMIA kit (Abbott, Chicago, USA) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 kit (Roche, Basel Switzerland).
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, SCR_010477)

    Data from additional tools added to each annotation on a weekly basis.

    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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154112v1 on medRxiv