Neutralising SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies persist for at least six months independently of symptoms in adults

  1. Angelika Wagner
  2. Angela Guzek
  3. Johanna Ruff
  4. Joanna Jasinska
  5. Ute Scheikl
  6. Ines Zwazl
  7. Michael Kundi
  8. Hannes Stockinger
  9. Maria R. Farcet
  10. Thomas R. Kreil
  11. Eva Hoeltl
  12. Ursula Wiedermann

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

Background

In spring 2020, at the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Europe, we set up an assay system for large-scale testing of virus-specific and neutralising antibodies including their longevity.

Methods

We analysed the sera of 1655 adult employees for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies using the S1 subunit of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Sera containing S1-reactive antibodies were further evaluated for receptor-binding domain (RBD)- and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific antibodies in relation to the neutralisation test (NT) results at three time points over six months.

Results

We detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgA antibodies reactive to the S1 protein in 10.15% ( n  = 168) of the participants. In total, 0.97% ( n  = 16) are positive for S1-IgG, 0.91% ( n  = 15) were S1-IgG- borderline and 8.28% ( n  = 137) exhibit only S1-IgA antibodies. Of the 168 S1-reactive sera, 8.33% ( n  = 14) have detectable RBD-specific antibodies and 6.55% ( n  = 11) NCP-specific antibodies. The latter correlates with NTs (kappa coefficient = 0.8660) but start to decline after 3 months. RBD-specific antibodies correlate most closely with the NT (kappa = 0.9448) and only these antibodies are stable for up to six months. All participants with virus-neutralising antibodies report symptoms, of which anosmia and/or dysgeusia correlate most closely with the detection of virus-neutralising antibodies.

Conclusions

RBD-specific antibodies are most reliably detected post-infection, independent of the number/severity of symptoms, and correlate with neutralising antibodies at least for six months. They thus qualify best for large-scale seroepidemiological evaluation of both antibody reactivity and virus neutralisation.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s43856-021-00012-4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.22.20248604: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: The employees gave informed consent to SARS-CoV-2 serological testing and answered a questionnaire covering demographic data and their medical history, including current medications (see Supplement materials).
    IRB: The ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna approved this monocentric study (EK 1438/2020, EK 1746/2020).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    After determining S1-specific IgG and IgA by ELISA, we further analysed those presenting positive or borderline results for RBD- and NCP-specific antibodies and by a live virus neutralisation test (at Takeda’s Global Pathogen Safety unit in Vienna) (for detailed information see supplementary materials).
    NCP-specific
    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 10.1101/2020.12.22.20248604 on medRxiv