Kinetics of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteins in individuals with varying severity of infection and following a single dose of the AZD1222

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

To characterize the IgG and IgA responses to different SARS-CoV-2 proteins, we investigated the antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and following a single dose of AZD1222 (Covishield), in Sri Lankan individuals. The IgG and IgA responses were assessed to S1, S2, RBD, and N proteins in patients at 4 weeks and 12 weeks since the onset of illness or following vaccination. Antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 wild type (WT), α, β, and λ and ACE2 (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2) receptor blocking antibodies were also assessed in these cohorts. For those with mild illness and in vaccines, the IgG responses to S1, S2, RBD, and N protein increased from 4 weeks to 12 weeks, while it remained unchanged in those with moderate/severe illness. In the vaccines, IgG antibodies to the S2 subunit had the highest significant rise (P < 0.0001). Vaccines had several-fold lower IgA antibodies to all the SARS-CoV-2 proteins tested than those with natural infection. At 12 weeks, the haemagglutination test (HAT) titres were significantly lower to the α in vaccines and significantly lower in those with mild illness and in vaccines to β and for λ. No such difference was seen in those with moderate/severe illness. Vaccines had significantly less IgA to SARS-CoV-2, but comparable IgG responses those with natural infection. However, following a single dose vaccines had reduced antibody levels to the VOCs, which further declined with time, suggesting the need to reduce the gap between the two doses, in countries experiencing outbreaks due to VOCs.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.14.21260510: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical approval was received by the Ethics Review Committee of Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.
    Consent: Informed written consent was obtained from patients.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serum samples from the patient cohort 1 (n=30) was used to determine the IgG and IgA antibody levels at 4 weeks since onset of illness, the ACE2 receptor blocking antibody levels and the antibodies to RBD by the HAT assay for the wild type (WT) and SARS-CoV-2 variants.
    IgA
    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.

    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.