Anti-membrane Antibodies Persist at Least One Year and Discriminate Between Past Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Vaccination

  1. Maya F Amjadi
  2. Ryan R Adyniec
  3. Srishti Gupta
  4. S Janna Bashar
  5. Aisha M Mergaert
  6. Katarina M Braun
  7. Gage K Moreno
  8. David H O’Connor
  9. Thomas C Friedrich
  10. Nasia Safdar
  11. Sara S McCoy
  12. Miriam A Shelef

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The consequences of past coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection for personal and population health are emerging, but accurately identifying distant infection is a challenge. Anti-spike antibodies rise after both vaccination and infection and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies rapidly decline.

Methods

We evaluated anti-membrane antibodies in COVID-19 naive, vaccinated, and convalescent subjects to determine if they persist and accurately detect distant infection.

Results

We found that anti-membrane antibodies persist for at least 1 year and are a sensitive and specific marker of past COVID-19 infection.

Conclusions

Thus, anti-membrane and anti-spike antibodies together can differentiate between COVID-19 convalescent, vaccinated, and naive states to advance public health and research.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/infdis/jiac263
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.02.21265750: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Human subjects: Human studies were performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the University of Wisconsin (UW) Institutional Review Board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Graphing and statistical analyses were performed using Prism (GraphPad, San Diego, CA) and JMP (SAS Institute, Cary, NC)
    Prism
    suggested: (PRISM, RRID:SCR_005375)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.02.21265750v1 on medRxiv