Seasonal coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting

  1. Arthur W. D. Edridge
  2. Joanna Kaczorowska
  3. Alexis C. R. Hoste
  4. Margreet Bakker
  5. Michelle Klein
  6. Katherine Loens
  7. Maarten F. Jebbink
  8. Amy Matser
  9. Cormac M. Kinsella
  10. Paloma Rueda
  11. Margareta Ieven
  12. Herman Goossens
  13. Maria Prins
  14. Patricia Sastre
  15. Martin Deijs
  16. Lia van der Hoek

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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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:
    Another limitation of the study is that the subjects in our study were all males. For COVID-19, and also HCoV-NL63, men have a higher incidence of disease20, and it is therefore of interest to determine the dynamics of protective immunity also in a cohort of healthy women. In conclusion, seasonal human coronaviruses have little in common, apart from causing common cold. Still, they all seem to induce a short-lasting immunity with rapid loss of antibodies. This may well be a general denominator for human coronaviruses.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1038/s41591-020-1083-1
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementThe study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MEC 07/182).RandomizationFrom a prospective cohort study following adult males (see M&M and (11)), ten subjects were randomly selected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variableFrom a prospective cohort study following adult males (see M&M and (11)), ten subjects were randomly selected.Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Visual inspection suggested that broadly recognizing antibodies were produced , and were most likely induced by combined infections with HCoV‐NL63 and HCoV‐HKU1 ( subjects 2 , 9 and 10 , supplementary Fig . S1) .
    S1
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    HCoV‐NL63, HCoV‐ OC43, and HCoV‐HKU1 all show different co‐circulating genetic clusters (19–21).
    HCoV‐NL63
    suggested: CVCL_RW88
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    To date it is uncertain whether SARS‐CoV‐2 will share the same winter prevalence peak that is observed for seasonal coronaviruses in non‐equatorial countries .
    SARS‐CoV‐2
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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 is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439v1 on medRxiv