Dynamic changes in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during SARS-CoV-2 infection and recovery from COVID-19

  1. Kening Li
  2. Bin Huang
  3. Min Wu
  4. Aifang Zhong
  5. Lu Li
  6. Yun Cai
  7. Zhihua Wang
  8. Lingxiang Wu
  9. Mengyan Zhu
  10. Jie Li
  11. Ziyu Wang
  12. Wei Wu
  13. Wanlin Li
  14. Bakwatanisa Bosco
  15. Zhenhua Gan
  16. Qinghua Qiao
  17. Jian Wu
  18. Qianghu Wang
  19. Shukui Wang
  20. Xinyi Xia

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Deciphering the dynamic changes in antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is essential for understanding the immune response in COVID-19 patients. Here we analyze the laboratory findings of 1,850 patients to describe the dynamic changes of the total antibody, spike protein (S)-, receptor-binding domain (RBD)-, and nucleoprotein (N)-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) and G (IgG) levels during SARS-CoV-2 infection and recovery. The generation of S-, RBD-, and N-specific IgG occurs one week later in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 compared to patients with mild/moderate disease, while S- and RBD-specific IgG levels are 1.5-fold higher in severe/critical patients during hospitalization. The RBD-specific IgG levels are 4-fold higher in older patients than in younger patients during hospitalization. In addition, the S- and RBD-specific IgG levels are 2-fold higher in the recovered patients who are SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative than those who are RNA positive. Lower S-, RBD-, and N-specific IgG levels are associated with a lower lymphocyte percentage, higher neutrophil percentage, and a longer duration of viral shedding. Patients with low antibody levels on discharge might thereby have a high chance of being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA after recovery. Our study provides important information for COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and vaccine development.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-020-19943-y
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.18.20105155: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital.
    Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from each patient.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    The beads were then incubated with acridinium ester-labeled mouse anti-human IgM or IgG antibody and reacted with hydrogen peroxide in excitation buffer.
    acridinium ester-labeled mouse anti-human IgM
    suggested: None
    IgG antibody
    suggested: None

    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 10.1101/2020.05.18.20105155v1 on medRxiv