Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33802453›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Comparative Assessment of Sera from Individuals after S-Gene RNA-Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination with Spike-Protein-Based and Nucleocapsid-Based Serological Assays.

Anja Dörschug, Hagen Frickmann, Julian Schwanbeck, Elif Yilmaz, Kemal Mese, Andreas Hahn, Uwe Groß, Andreas E Zautner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Spike-based COVID-19 immunization increases antibodies to nucleocapsid antigen.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anja DörschugInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Hagen FrickmannInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8967-9528
Julian SchwanbeckInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2803-0167
Elif YilmazDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Kemal MeseInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Andreas HahnInstitute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-8369
Uwe GroßInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Andreas E ZautnerInstitute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0984-013X
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEBundeswehrkrankenhaus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the beginning of vaccination against COVID-19, serological discrimination between vaccine-associated humoral response and serology-based surveillance of natural SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as breakthrough infections becomes an issue of relevance. Here, we assessed the differentiated effects of the application of an RNA vaccine using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein epitopes on the results of both anti-spike protein-based serology (EUROIMMUN) and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology (VIROTECH). A total of 80 serum samples from vaccinees acquired at different time points after vaccination was assessed. While positive or borderline serological response in the anti-spike protein assay was observed for all samples (90% both IgG and IgA, 6.3% IgA only, 3.8% borderline IgG only), only a single case of a falsely positive IgM was observed for the anti-nucleocapsid assay as expected due to this assay's specificity. Positive anti-spike protein antibodies were already detectable in the second week after the first dose of vaccination, with higher titers after the second dose of the vaccine. In conclusion, the combined application of anti-spike protein-based serology and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology will provide a useful option for the discrimination of vaccination response and natural infection.

Indexed as

COVID-19nucleocapsidSARS-CoV-2serologyspike proteinsurveillancevaccination

Identifiers

PMID33802453
PMCPMC7998789
OpenAlexW3133814922

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.