Differential pre-pandemic breast milk IgA reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 and circulating human coronaviruses in Ugandan and American mothers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.24.21259294: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: The study was part of a larger malaria study that was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Vector Control Division, Ministry of Health and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology.
    IRB: The study was part of a larger malaria study that was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Vector Control Division, Ministry of Health and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology.
    Consent: All donors provided written informed consent. 2.2.
    Sex as a biological variableThe study population comprised of mothers who were breastfeeding at the time of the study.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay (ELISA): To examine the levels of SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV Abs in human milk, we modified an ELISA that was recently developed and validated for use in blood serum/plasma [28,29] and have been successfully adapted this assay for use with human milk [18].

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All statistical tests were performed in GraphPad Prism, were 2-tailed, and significance level was set at p-values < 0.05.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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:
    Our study has several limitations. First, only a small number of pre-pandemic samples were analyzed for IgA reactivity. It is therefore not possible to conclude whether a proportion of the Ugandan study population have similar cross-reactive immunity. Second, no SARS-CoV-2 neutralization studies were carried out to determine the functional relevance of the highly reactive IgA antibodies in some pre-pandemic Ugandan samples. We have previously reported that breast milk IgA titers correlate with virus neutralization activity in American mothers [44]. There are plans to identify Ugandan samples with high IgA reactivity and undertake neutralization experiments to establish their functional relevance to protection. Third, the cross-sectional design of the study precluded the generation of hypotheses about cause-effect relationships. The design was inevitable because samples were collected at a single time point before the COVID-19 pandemic. Fourth, the study only looked at IgA reactivity and did not investigate other antibody isotypes that may be relevant to mucosal cross-immunity against COVID-19. Finally, the study did not correlate breast milk and serum antibody reactivity to establish the relationship between systemic and mucosal cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and HCoVs in the study region. Some of these limitations will be addressed in a future study with a larger number of Ugandan pre-pandemic breast milk samples.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.