4.6 Article

Longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 antibody study using the Easy Check COVID-19 IgM/IgG™ lateral flow assay

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247797

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found sustained anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in COVID-19 patients for over 4 months, with Easy Check demonstrating the ability to monitor seroconversion and antibody response effectively.
Since the initial identification of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in December of 2019, researchers have raced to understand its pathogenesis and begun devising vaccine and treatment strategies. An accurate understanding of the body's temporal immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is paramount to successful vaccine development and disease progression monitoring. To provide insight into the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2, plasma samples from 181 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients collected at various timepoints post-symptom onset (PSO) were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies via lateral flow. Additionally, 21 donors were tracked over time to elucidate patient-specific immune responses. We found sustained levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies past 130 days PSO, with 99% positivity observed at 31-60 days PSO. By 61-90 days PSO, the percentage of IgM-/IgG+ results were nearly equal to that of IgM+/IgG+ results, demonstrating a shift in the immune response with a decrease in IgM antibody levels. Results from this study not only provide evidence that the antibody response to COVID19 can persist for over 4 months, but also demonstrates the ability of Easy Check (TM) to monitor seroconversion and antibody response of patients. Easy Check was sufficiently sensitive to detect antibodies in patient samples as early as 1-4 days PSO with 86% positivity observed at 5-7 days PSO. Further studies are required to determine the longevity and efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and whether they are protective against re-infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据