Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies among COVID19 biobank donors in Argentina

  1. Yesica Longueira
  2. María Laura Polo
  3. Gabriela Turk
  4. Natalia Laufer

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.heliyon.2021.e08140
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.31.21250167: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: They must provide written consent for the donation and a case report form (CRF) with clinical and demographic data is completed by the researchers.
    IRB: The SARS CoV-2 collection within the BBEI was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the non-for-profit research organization Fundación Huésped (Comité de Bioética Humana, Fundación
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Antibody assessment: The presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies were evaluated in plasma samples from all donors enrolled in the biobank by ELISA using the COVIDAR kit.
    IgG
    suggested: None
    Samples were considered positive for SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies when the specific apple-green fluorescence was located in the cytoplasm or on the plasma membrane in approximately 80% of the cells and no fluorescence staining was observed in the corresponding uninfected control.
    SARS-COV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Briefly, Vero Clon76 cells (ATCC CRL-587) were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 strain (hCoV-19/Argentina/PAIS-G0001/2020, GISAID, ID: EPI_ISL_499083) at a multiplicity of infection (moi)= 0,1.
    Vero Clon76
    suggested: None
    Then, mixtures were added to 80% confluent Vero-E6 cell monolayers in 96-well plates and incubated at 37⍰°C for 1 h.
    Vero-E6
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    This kit was developed by Argentinean researchers from CONICET, Fundación Instituto Leloir and UNSAM together with Laboratorio Lemos S.R.L.
    CONICET
    suggested: (CONICET, RRID:SCR_011168)
    Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software), InfoStat [12], R project (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and SPSS software v.19.0
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    InfoStat
    suggested: (InfoStat, RRID:SCR_014310)
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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 10.1101/2021.01.31.21250167v1 on medRxiv