Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827460›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021

IgG and IgM antibody formation to spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 characterized by multiplex immunoblot assays.

Jyotsna Shah, Song Liu, Hari-Hara Potula, Prerna Bhargava, Iris Cruz, Denise Force, Ammar Bazerbashi, Ranjan Ramasamy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. An outlook on coronavirus disease 2019 detection methods.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. COVID-19 Detection Using the NHS Lateral Flow Test Kit.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Jyotsna ShahIGeneX Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA. jshah@igenex.com.
Song LiuID-FISH Technology Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA.
Hari-Hara PotulaID-FISH Technology Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA.
Prerna BhargavaIGeneX Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA.
Iris CruzIGeneX Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA.
Denise ForceMedical Art Center, 950 Route 35, Middletown, NJ, 07748, USA.
Ammar BazerbashiMedical Art Center, 950 Route 35, Middletown, NJ, 07748, USA.
Ranjan RamasamyID-FISH Technology Inc, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA, 95035, USA. rramasamy@idfishtechnology.com.
ID-FISH Technology (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid and simple serological assays for characterizing antibody responses are important in the current COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Multiplex immunoblot (IB) assays termed COVID-19 IB assays were developed for detecting IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins in COVID-19 patients.

methodsRecombinant nucleocapsid protein and the S1, S2 and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were used as target antigens in the COVID-19 IBs. Specificity of the IB assay was established with 231 sera from persons with allergy, unrelated viral infections, autoimmune conditions and suspected tick-borne diseases, and 32 goat antisera to human influenza proteins. IgG and IgM COVID-19 IBs assays were performed on 84 sera obtained at different times after a positive RT-qPCR test from 37 COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms.

resultsCriteria for determining overall IgG and IgM antibody positivity using the four SARS-CoV-2 proteins were developed by optimizing specificity and sensitivity in the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IB assays. The estimated sensitivities and specificities of the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IBs for IgG and IgM antibodies individually or for either IgG or IgM antibodies meet the US recommendations for laboratory serological diagnostic tests. The proportion of IgM-positive sera from the COVID-19 patients following an RT-qPCR positive test was maximal at 83% before 10 days and decreased to 0% after 100 days, while the proportions of IgG-positive sera tended to plateau between days 11 and 65 at 78-100% and fall to 44% after 100 days. Detection of either IgG or IgM antibodies was better than IgG or IgM alone for assessing seroconversion in COVID-19. Both IgG and IgM antibodies detected RBD less frequently than S1, S2 and N proteins.

conclusionsThe multiplex COVID-19 IB assays offer many advantages for simultaneously evaluating antibody responses to different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in COVID-19 patients.

Indexed as

Antibody FormationAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsCOVID-19HumansImmunoblottingImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MPandemicsPhosphoproteinsSensitivity and SpecificitySeroconversionSerologic TestsSpike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin Mnucleocapsid phosphoprotein, SARS-CoV-2PhosphoproteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2COVID-19Line immunoblot assayMultiplex assayNucleocapsid proteinReceptor-binding domainSARS-CoV-2Serological diagnosisSpike protein

Identifiers

PMID33827460
PMCPMC8025059
OpenAlexW3139973143

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.