Comparison of IgG and neutralizing antibody responses after one or two doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in previously infected and uninfected individuals.

  1. Alexis R. Demonbreun
  2. Amelia Sancilio
  3. Matt P. Velez
  4. Daniel T. Ryan
  5. Rana Saber
  6. Lauren A. Vaught
  7. Nina L. Reiser
  8. Ryan R. Hsieh
  9. Richard T. D'Aquila
  10. Brian Mustanski
  11. Elizabeth M. McNally
  12. Thomas W. McDade

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. Version published to 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101018
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.04.21252913: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Study approvals: Research activities were implemented under conditions of informed consent with protocols approved by the institutional review board at Northwestern University (#STU00212457, and #STU00212472).
    IRB: Study approvals: Research activities were implemented under conditions of informed consent with protocols approved by the institutional review board at Northwestern University (#STU00212457, and #STU00212472).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Participants who lacked self-report of a positive SARS-CoV-2 clinical diagnostic test result were categorized as seropositive or seronegative based on the presence of anti-RBD IgG antibodies in DBS samples collected between April and December 2020.
    anti-RBD IgG
    suggested: None
    Results were normalized to the CR3022 antibody with known affinity to RBD 10.
    CR3022
    suggested: (Imported from the IEDB Cat# CR3022, RRID:AB_2848080)

    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 10.1101/2021.03.04.21252913v1 on medRxiv