Dynamics of antibody response to BNT162b2 vaccine after six months: a longitudinal prospective study

  1. Paul Naaber
  2. Liina Tserel
  3. Kadri Kangro
  4. Epp Sepp
  5. Virge Jürjenson
  6. Ainika Adamson
  7. Liis Haljasmägi
  8. Anna Pauliina Rumm
  9. Regina Maruste
  10. Jaanika Kärner
  11. Joachim M. Gerhold
  12. Anu Planken
  13. Mart Ustav
  14. Kai Kisand
  15. Pärt Peterson

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100208
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255714: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Participants signed an informed consent form agreeing with sampling and usage of their clinical data.
    IRB: 7 The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu on February 15, 2021 (nr 335/T-21).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Antibody testing: Serum samples were analyzed for the antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) IgG using quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG QN chemiluminescent micro-particle immunoassay (CLIA) on ARCHITECT i2000SR analyzer (Abbott Laboratories).
    SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Antibody testing: Serum samples were analyzed for the antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) IgG using quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG QN chemiluminescent micro-particle immunoassay (CLIA) on ARCHITECT i2000SR analyzer (Abbott Laboratories).
    Abbott Laboratories
    suggested: None
    Python’s (version 3.7) sklearn
    Python’s
    suggested: (PyMVPA, RRID:SCR_006099)

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255714 on medRxiv