Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33211781›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Antibody profiling and prevalence in US patients during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic.

Hari Krishnan Krishnamurthy, Vasanth Jayaraman, Karthik Krishna, Karenah E Rajasekaran, Tianhao Wang, Kang Bei, John J Rajasekaran, Inna Yaskin, Alex J Rai, Rok Seon Choung and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hari Krishnan KrishnamurthyVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7832-8423
Vasanth JayaramanVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
Karthik KrishnaVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
Karenah E RajasekaranVibrant America LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
Tianhao WangVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
Kang BeiVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
John J RajasekaranVibrant Sciences LLC., San Carlos, CA, United States of America.
Inna YaskinElite Medical Center, Sunnyvale, CA, United States of America.
Alex J RaiDepartment of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, United States of America.
Rok Seon ChoungDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Joseph A MurrayDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Vibrant Data (United States) · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibody diagnostics play an important role in disease detection and can potentially aid in monitoring of the immune responses to see if an individual has developed immunity. Developing high throughput diagnostics which does not involve handling of infectious material becomes imperative in the case of pandemics such as the recent outbreak of SARS-CoV2.

methodsA protein microarray technology was used to detect the plurality of antibody response to four novel antigens namely S1 glycoprotein, Receptor binding domain (RBD), S2 glycoprotein and Nucleoprotein of the novel coronavirus named SARS-CoV2 using serum samples. A DBS card was additionally used to compare its performance with a venipuncture-based serum separator tube (SST) draw.

resultsThe three main subclasses of antibodies IgM, IgA and IgG were analyzed to see the variations in immune responses in the affected population and compared to their microbial RT-PCR based NP swab results. The clinical sensitivity and specificity were determined to be 99.67% and 99.77%. In the matrix comparison study, which would enable patients to test without risk of transmitting the virus, DBS (Dried Blood Spot) matched with higher than 98% accuracy to a venipuncture-based SST collection.

conclusionMultiplex testing enables higher sensitivity and specificity which is essential while establishing exposure on a population scale. This flexible platform along with a discrete collection methodology would be crucial and broadly useful to scale up testing in current and future pandemics. Minimum sample volume that can be collected using DBS cards can be processed in this multiplex pillar plate format enabling the capacity to provide the reliability of high throughput analyzers while having the ease of collection similar to rapid tests.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralBetacoronavirusChildClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin IsotypesMaleMass ScreeningAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin Isotypes

Identifiers

PMID33211781
PMCPMC7676701
OpenAlexW3104415146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.