ArticleiScience2021
Longitudinal analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence using multiple serology platforms.
Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2: The Interplay Between Evolution and Host Immunity.Annual review of immunology · 2025Review
- SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey across multiple waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City between 2020-2023.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Durability of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.Seminars in immunology · 2024Review
- Binding and Avidity Signatures of Polyclonal Sera From Individuals With Different Exposure Histories to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection, Vaccination, and Omicron Breakthrough Infections.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Observational
- Comparison of nucleocapsid and spike antibody ELISAs for determining SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in Kenyan women and infants.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests are based on the full-length spike (S), the receptor-binding domain (RBD), or the nucleoprotein (NP) as substrates. Here, we used samples from healthcare workers (HCWs) to perform a longitudinal analysis of the antibody responses using a research-grade RBD and spike-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a commercial RBD and spike-based ELISA, and a commercial NP-based chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Seroprevalence ranged around 28% early during the pandemic and a good correlation was observed between RBD and spike-based ELISAs. Modest correlations were observed between NP and both RBD and spike-based assays. The antibody levels in HCWs declined over time; however, the overall seroprevalence measured by RBD and spike-based assays remained unchanged, while the seroprevalence of NP-reactive antibodies significantly declined. Moreover, RBD and spike-based assays effectively detected seroconversion in vaccinees. Overall, our results consolidate the strength of different serological assays to assess the magnitude and duration of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.