ArticleScientific reports2025
Flow cytometric analysis of the SARS coronavirus 2 antibodies in human plasma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can provide information on patient immunity, identify asymptomatic patients, and track the spread of COVID-19. Efforts have been made to develop methods to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in humans. Here, we describe a flow cytometric assay for the simultaneous detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM in human plasma. To assess the antibody response against the different SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins, five viral recombinant proteins, including spike protein subunit 1 (S1), N-terminal domain of S1 (S1A), spike receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike protein subunit 2 (S2), and nucleocapsid protein (N), were generated. A comparison of the antibody profiles detected by the assay with plasma from 100 healthy blood donors collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and plasma from 100 virologically confirmed COVID-19 patients demonstrated a clear discrimination between the two groups. Among the COVID-19 patients, the antibody responses for the viral proteins, as determined by their prevalence, were anti-RBD IgG = anti-N IgG > anti-S1 IgG > anti-S1A IgG > anti-S2 IgG, and anti-RBD IgM > anti-S1 IgM > anti-N IgM > anti-S2 IgM. The prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM was not associated with sex, age, race, days after the onset of symptoms, or severity of illness, except for a higher prevalence of anti-S2 IgG being observed in men than in women. The levels of anti-RBD IgG were higher in patients 65 years and older and in patients who had severe symptoms. Similarly, patients who had severe symptoms exhibited higher levels of anti-S1 and anti-S1A IgG than patients who had mild or moderate symptoms. The levels of anti-RBD IgM tended to be higher in men but did not differ among age, race, days after the onset of symptoms, or severity of illness. Our study indicates that the flow cytometric assay, especially using RBD as target antigen, can be used to detect simultaneously anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies in human plasma.
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.