Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34421894›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology

Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Membrane Protein in Patients of the Acute and Convalescent Phase of COVID-19.

Philipp Jörrißen, Paula Schütz, Matthias Weiand, Richard Vollenberg, Inga Marie Schrempf, Kevin Ochs, Christopher Frömmel, Phil-Robin Tepasse, Hartmut Schmidt, Andree Zibert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Intranasal Multiepitope PD-L1-siRNA-Based Nanovaccine: The Next-Gen COVID-19 Immunotherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Evaluation of S- and M-Proteins Expressed inPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philipp JörrißenMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Paula SchützMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Matthias WeiandMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Richard VollenbergMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Inga Marie SchrempfMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Kevin OchsMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Christopher FrömmelMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Phil-Robin TepasseMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Hartmut SchmidtMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
Andree ZibertMedizinische Klinik B, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
University Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the course of the antibody response directed to individual epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 proteins is crucial for serological assays and establishment of vaccines. Twenty-one synthetic peptides were synthesized that have ten amino acids overlap and cover the complete membrane (M) protein. Plasma samples from 32 patients having acute disease and 30 patients from the convalescent phase were studied. Only peptide M01 (aa 1-20) and to a lesser extent peptide M21 (aa 201-222) showed specific reactivity as compared to historical control plasma samples. Peptide M01 was recognized by IgM- (71.9%) and IgG-specific antibodies (43.8%) during the acute phase as early as day 8 PIO. In a longitudinal analysis, a higher reactivity was observed for the IgM response directed to peptide M01 following day 20 PIO as compared to earlier time points of the acute phase. In the convalescent phase, antibody reactivity to the two M-specific peptides was significantly lower (<30% seropositivity). A fusion protein encoding major parts of RBD also showed higher rates of recognition during acute (50.0%) and lower rates in the convalescent phase (23.3%). Taken together, our results suggest that during the acute phase of COVID-19 antibodies are raised to two linear epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 M protein, located at the very N- and C-termini, showing almost similar levels of reactivity as immunodominant linear epitopes derived from the spike and nucleocapsid protein. Anti-M is also present in the convalescent phase of COVID-19 patients, however at lower levels, with the N-terminus of the M protein as a preferred target.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralConvalescenceCoronavirus M ProteinsCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsCOVID-19FemaleHumansImmunodominant EpitopesImmunoglobulin MMaleMiddle AgedPatient AcuityPeptide FragmentsAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus M ProteinsCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsImmunodominant EpitopesImmunoglobulin Mmembrane protein, SARS-CoV-2N protein, SARS-CoVPeptide FragmentsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike glycoprotein, SARS-CoVViral Matrix ProteinsantibodiesB-cell epitope mapping analysesCOVID-19ELISAimmunodominant epitopesmembrane proteinRBDSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34421894
PMCPMC8371319
OpenAlexW3189724273

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.