Why the SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results may be misleading: insights from a longitudinal analysis of COVID-19
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
To estimate the effectiveness of vaccines in development, a robust mechanism is required to understand immunity, risks of reinfection and measure the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and how this may change over time. This study is a longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 infection rates using PCR, membrane immunoassay and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) diagnostic tests. Our data confirm that antibody levels wane in the three months after symptom onset. Comparison of the three methods used suggests that quantitative CMIA testing may exaggerate numbers of COVID-19 negative individuals.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.08.20245894: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources In principle, the CMIA test should be able to quantify SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibody titres, which would be a more useful use of the system. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgGsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources To gain a better understanding of the duration of immunity, we quantified IgG levels of 21 individuals after they were infected with SARS-CoV-2 using the Abbott Laboratories (Illinois, USA) chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). Abbott Laboratoriessuggested: NoneSciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.08.20245894: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources In principle, the CMIA test should be able to quantify SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibody titres, which would be a more useful use of the system. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgGsuggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources To gain a better understanding of the duration of immunity, we quantified IgG levels of 21 individuals after they were infected with SARS-CoV-2 using the Abbott Laboratories (Illinois, USA) chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). Abbott Laboratoriessuggested: NoneUpon binding, the reaction substrate generates luminescence, which is measured by the Abbott Architect system. Abbott Architectsuggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)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.
-
