A new testing platform using fingerstick blood for quantitative antibody response evaluation after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

  1. Jinwei Du
  2. Dayu Zhang
  3. Joseph A. Pathakamuri
  4. Daniel Kuebler
  5. Ying Yang
  6. Yulia Loginova
  7. Eric Chu
  8. Roberta Madej
  9. Jocelyn V. Neves
  10. Brianna Singer
  11. Holly Radke
  12. Naomi Spencer
  13. Elizabeth Rizk
  14. Aiguo Zhang
  15. Chuanyi M. Lu
  16. Michael Y. Sha

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. Version published to 10.1080/22221751.2021.2023328
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.11.21255278: (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 Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Franciscan University of Steubenville (IRB #2021-05) as a no-subject contact study with waiver of consent and as exempt under category 4.
    Consent: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Franciscan University of Steubenville (IRB #2021-05) as a no-subject contact study with waiver of consent and as exempt under category 4.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1 Antibody (human chimeric, IgG isotype) was purchased from GenScript Biotech Corporation (Piscataway, NJ)
    human chimeric , IgG isotype
    suggested: None
    human chimeric , IgG
    suggested: None
    PE conjugated anti-human IgG Fc antibody was purchased from BioLegend (San Diego, CA)
    anti-human IgG
    suggested: None
    If present, the IgG antibodies in specimen against S1 RBD protein (the antigen) will bind to the coated magnetic beads.
    IgG
    suggested: None
    S1 RBD protein (the antigen)
    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 10.1101/2021.04.11.21255278v1 on medRxiv