Analysis of Serologic Cross-Reactivity Between Common Human Coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 Using Coronavirus Antigen Microarray

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

The current practice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection relies on PCR testing of nasopharyngeal or respiratory specimens in a symptomatic patient at high epidemiologic risk. This testing strategy likely underestimates the true prevalence of infection, creating the need for serologic methods to detect infections missed by the limited testing to date. Here, we describe the development of a coronavirus antigen microarray containing immunologically significant antigens from SARS-CoV-2, in addition to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, common human coronavirus strains, and other common respiratory viruses. A preliminary study of human sera collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic demonstrates overall high IgG reactivity to common human coronaviruses and low IgG reactivity to epidemic coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2, with some cross-reactivity of conserved antigenic domains including S2 domain of spike protein and nucleocapsid protein. This array can be used to answer outstanding questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection, including whether baseline serology for other coronaviruses impacts disease course, how the antibody response to infection develops over time, and what antigens would be optimal for vaccine development.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.24.006544: (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.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    The microarray slides were probed with human sera diluted 1:100 in 1x GVS Fast Blocking Buffer (Fischer Scientific) overnight at 4°C, washed with T-TBS buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween-20 in ddH2O adjusted to pH 7.5 and filtered) 3 times for 5 minutes each, labeled with secondary antibodies to human IgG conjugated to quantum dot fluorophore for 2 hours at room temperature, and then washed with T-TBS 3 times for 5 minutes each and dried.
    human IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Antigen Microarray: The coronavirus antigen microarray used in this investigation includes 67 antigens across subtypes expressed in either baculovirus or HEK-293 cells (see Tables 1-3).
    HEK-293
    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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 7. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
    • 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.