This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Andreas R. Klatt
Institute for Clinical Chemistry, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Declarations:
Declarations
- This study involved human subjects.
- The author confirmed that all appropriate ethical guidelines for the use of human subjects have been followed, any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee review has been obtained, and information about the IRB/ethics committee is included in the manuscript.
- The author has confirmed that all necessary patient/participant consent or assent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. If the IRB/ethics committee waived the requirement for patient/participant consent or assent, an explanation for the waiver is included in the text.
- The author has confirmed that a statement listing potential conflicts of interest or lack thereof is included in the text.
Immunoassays are a standard diagnostic tool assessing immunity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) infection. However, immunoassays do not provide information about contaminating antigens or cross‑reactions and might exhibit inaccurately high sensitivity and low specificity. We aimed to gain insight into the serological immune response of SARS‑CoV‑2 patients by immunoblot analysis.
We analyzed serum immunoglobulins IgM, ‑A, and ‑G directed against SARS‑CoV‑2 proteins by immunoblot analysis from 12 infected patients. We determined IgG isotype antibodies by commercially available ELISA and assessed the clinical parameters of inflammation status and kidney and liver injury.
We found evidence for antibody cross‑reactivity, which calls into question a reliable assessment of serum samples tested negative for anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 antibodies by immunoassays. Nevertheless, for the detection of IgG anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 antibodies, our data suggest that the use of the spike glycoprotein in immunoassays should be sufficient to identify positive patients. Using a combination of the spike glycoprotein and the open reading frame 8 protein could prove to be the best for the detection of patients positive for anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 IgM antibodies. We found that the antibody response alone is not decisive for the course of the disease, but inflammation parameters are promising indicators.
Keywords
SARS CoV 2, COVID-19, antibody response, immunoglobulin, cross reactivity, spike glycoprotein, ORF8
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 2
Posted 13 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
No comments provided
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research Article
Andreas R. Klatt
Institute for Clinical Chemistry, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 2
Posted 13 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
No comments provided
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Declarations:
Declarations
- This study involved human subjects.
- The author confirmed that all appropriate ethical guidelines for the use of human subjects have been followed, any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee review has been obtained, and information about the IRB/ethics committee is included in the manuscript.
- The author has confirmed that all necessary patient/participant consent or assent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. If the IRB/ethics committee waived the requirement for patient/participant consent or assent, an explanation for the waiver is included in the text.
- The author has confirmed that a statement listing potential conflicts of interest or lack thereof is included in the text.
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Immunoassays are a standard diagnostic tool assessing immunity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) infection. However, immunoassays do not provide information about contaminating antigens or cross‑reactions and might exhibit inaccurately high sensitivity and low specificity. We aimed to gain insight into the serological immune response of SARS‑CoV‑2 patients by immunoblot analysis.
We analyzed serum immunoglobulins IgM, ‑A, and ‑G directed against SARS‑CoV‑2 proteins by immunoblot analysis from 12 infected patients. We determined IgG isotype antibodies by commercially available ELISA and assessed the clinical parameters of inflammation status and kidney and liver injury.
We found evidence for antibody cross‑reactivity, which calls into question a reliable assessment of serum samples tested negative for anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 antibodies by immunoassays. Nevertheless, for the detection of IgG anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 antibodies, our data suggest that the use of the spike glycoprotein in immunoassays should be sufficient to identify positive patients. Using a combination of the spike glycoprotein and the open reading frame 8 protein could prove to be the best for the detection of patients positive for anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 IgM antibodies. We found that the antibody response alone is not decisive for the course of the disease, but inflammation parameters are promising indicators.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...