Prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in healthy blood donors in New York

  1. Kathy Kamath
  2. Elisabeth Baum-Jones
  3. Gregory Jordan
  4. Winston Haynes
  5. Rebecca Waitz
  6. John Shon
  7. Steve Kujawa
  8. Lyn Fitzgibbons
  9. Debra Kessler
  10. Larry Luchsinger
  11. Yale IMPACT Team
  12. Patrick Daugherty

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

Despite the high level of morbidity and mortality worldwide, there is increasing evidence for asymptomatic carriers of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. We analyzed blood specimens from 1,559 healthy blood donors, collected in the greater New York metropolitan area between the months of March and July 2020 for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus. Using our proprietary technology, SERA (Serum Epitope Repertoire Analysis), we observed a significant increase in SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity rates over the four-month period, from 0% [95% CI: 0 - 1.5%] (March) to 11.6% [6.0 - 21.2%] (July). Follow-up ELISA tests using S1 and nucleocapsid viral proteins confirmed most of these results. Our findings are consistent with seroprevalence studies within the region and with reports that SARS-COV-2 infections can be asymptomatic or cause only mild symptoms.

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has caused vast morbidity and mortality worldwide, yet several studies indicate that there may be a significant number of infected people who are asymptomatic or exhibit mild symptoms. In this study, samples were collected from healthy blood donors in a region of rapidly increasing disease burden (New York metropolitan area) and we hypothesized that a subset would be seropositive to SARS-CoV-2. People who experienced mild or no symptoms during SARS-CoV-2 infection may represent a source for convalescent plasma donors.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215368: (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.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215368 on medRxiv