ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2021
Development and validation of an enzyme immunoassay for detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA and IgG.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Oral fluids offer a non-invasive sampling method for the detection of antibodies. Quantification of IgA and IgG antibodies in saliva allows studies of the mucosal and systemic immune response after natural infection or vaccination. We developed and validated an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to detect and quantify salivary IgA and IgG antibodies against the prefusion-stabilized form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Normalization against total antibody isotype was performed to account for specimen differences, such as collection time and sample volume. Saliva samples collected from 187 SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases enrolled in 2 cohorts and 373 pre-pandemic saliva samples were tested. The sensitivity of both EIAs was high (IgA: 95.5%; IgG: 89.7%) without compromising specificity (IgA: 99%; IgG: 97%). No cross reactivity with seasonal coronaviruses was observed. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA and IgG assays were 1.98 ng/mL and 0.30 ng/mL, respectively. Salivary IgA and IgG antibodies were detected earlier in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms than in severe cases. However, severe cases showed higher salivary antibody titers than those with a mild infection. Salivary IgA titers quickly decreased after 6 weeks in mild cases but remained detectable until at least week 10 in severe cases. Salivary IgG titers remained high for all patients, regardless of disease severity. In conclusion, EIAs for both IgA and IgG had high specificity and sensitivity for the confirmation of current or recent SARS-CoV-2 infections and evaluation of the IgA and IgG immune response.
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.