Literature DB >> 18258008

Duration of antibody responses after severe acute respiratory syndrome.

Li-Ping Wu1, Nai-Chang Wang, Yi-Hua Chang, Xiang-Yi Tian, Dan-Yu Na, Li-Yuan Zhang, Lei Zheng, Tao Lan, Lin-Fa Wang, Guo-Dong Liang.   

Abstract

Among 176 patients who had had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS-specific antibodies were maintained for an average of 2 years, and significant reduction of immunoglobulin G-positive percentage and titers occurred in the third year. Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >or=3 years after initial exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18258008      PMCID: PMC2851497          DOI: 10.3201/eid1310.070576

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   6.883


Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) represents the first pandemic transmissible disease to emerge in this century. It was caused by a previously unknown coronavirus, the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) (). SARS-CoV spreads from animals to humans by a rapid adaptation and evolution process (,). A large number of closely related viruses are present in wildlife reservoir populations (–). Therefore, due to cross-species transmission of the same or a similar coronavirus, SARS could recur. Immune protection against infection with other human coronaviruses, such as OC43 and 229E, is short-lived (). To assess SARS patients’ risk for future reinfection, we conducted a longitudinal study of immunity in convalescent patients.

The Study

Shanxi Province in China was 1 of the SARS epicenters during the 2002–03 outbreaks. For our study, serum samples were taken from patients in 7 designated SARS hospitals in the province during March–August 2003. Follow-up serum samples were taken at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after the onset of symptoms. A total of 176 cases that met the World Health Organization (WHO) SARS case definition () and had known transmission history were included in this study. The study was conducted as part of a national SARS control and prevention program; use of serum from human participants was approved by the Committee for SARS Control and Prevention, Department of Science and Technology, the People’s Republic of China. Titers of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV were determined by using a commercially available ELISA kit (BJI-GBI Biotechnology, Beijing, China). The ELISA was based on an inactivated preparation of whole-virus lysate. The kit was the first commercial kit approved by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration for specific detection of SARS-CoV antibodies and has been widely used in several studies (–). Manufacturer’s instructions were followed without modification. Briefly, for every ELISA plate, 1 blank, 1 positive, and 2 negative controls were included. For detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG), a 1:10 dilution of testing serum (100 μL) was added to antigen-coated wells, and the plate was incubated at 37oC for 30 min. Horseradish peroxide (HRP)–conjugated antihuman IgG (100 μL) was then added for detection of bound antibodies. For detection of IgM, the incubation of primary antibodies was extended to 60 min, followed by detection with HRP-conjugated antihuman IgM. Optical density (OD) readings were deemed valid only when the negative control OD was <0.10 and the positive control was >0.50 on the same ELISA plate. The cutoff for IgG and IgM determination was defined as 0.13 and 0.11, respectively, plus OD of the negative control. When the OD of the negative control was <0.05, 0.05 was used for the calculation. In this study, the OD readings of negative controls from different testing were consistently <0.05, so the cutoff ODs for IgG and IgM were 0.18 and 0.16, respectively. Serum samples that had an OD greater than or equal to the cutoff value were considered positive. Weak positive samples (i.e., OD<2× cutoff value) were retested in duplicate on the same day; only reproducible positive results were included in the final analysis. All data were processed by using Excel version 7.0 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS software version 10 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Among the cohort, 163 (92.61%) of 176 (χ2 = 200.11, p = 0.000002) were IgG positive, which indicated that most patients who met the WHO case definition were indeed infected with SARS-CoV. As shown in the Table, at ≈7 days after the onset of symptoms, the percentage who were IgG positive was ≈11.80%. This percentage continued to increase, reached 100% at 90 days, and remained largely unchanged up to 200 days. Furthermore, after 1 and 2 years 93.88% and 89.58% of patients, respectively, were IgG positive, which suggests that the immune responses were maintained in >90% of patients for 2 years. However, 3 years later, ≈50% of the convalescent population had no SARS-CoV–specific IgG. The OD changes correlated with the changes to the IgG-positive percentage, although the rate of change varied. Both the OD readings (0.93) and positive percentages peaked at 90–120 days; however, the rate of reduction of the average OD readings was much faster, dropping by 22% (0.73) and 40% (0.54) at 1 and 2 years, respectively, after symptom onset (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 176 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with known transmission history. See the Table for number of samples used for the calculation at each time point. OD, optical density.

Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 176 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with known transmission history. See the Table for number of samples used for the calculation at each time point. OD, optical density. A similar observation was obtained for IgM trends in this same cohort. The percentage of patients who were IgM positive within the first 7 days was 21.4% and peaked at 76.2% after 21–30 days (Table). The patterns of IgM-positive percentage and average OD readings were similar; both peaked at 21–30 days. After 60 days, the average OD readings dropped to 0.167, close to the cutoff value of 0.160.
Table

Cumulative rates of SARS-CoV antibodies among 176 SARS patients with known transmission histories*

Time after symptom onset, dIgG
IgM†
No. samples testedNo. positive samples (%)Average ODNo. samples 
testedNo. positive samples (%)Average OD
0–7172 (11.76)0.046143 (21.43)0.136
8–142610 (38.46)0.1902214 (63.64)0.312
15–202217 (77.27)0.3511912 (63.16)0.477
21–303633 (91.67)0.4932116 (76.19)0.560
31–607267 (93.06)0.6272214 (63.64)0.320
61–903533 (94.29)0.745155 (33.33)0.167
91–1201111 (100.00)0.965NDNDND
121–2102323 (100.00)0.932NDNDND
211–3654946 (93.88)0.734NDNDND
366–7639686 (89.58)0.535NDNDND
764–1,2652815 (53.57)0.250NDNDND

*SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus; Ig, immunoglobulin; OD, optical density; ND, not determined because for most samples the IgM readings already reached background level on day 90.
†For some patients, we did not have enough serum to test for IgM after testing for IgG; hence, a smaller number of serum samples were tested for IgM than for IgG.

*SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus; Ig, immunoglobulin; OD, optical density; ND, not determined because for most samples the IgM readings already reached background level on day 90.
†For some patients, we did not have enough serum to test for IgM after testing for IgG; hence, a smaller number of serum samples were tested for IgM than for IgG. Among the cohort of patients with known transmission histories, we were able to obtain a complete collection of serum samples from 18 patients at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. The IgG levels of these 18 patients were analyzed separately to obtain an IgG trend that more accurately represented convalescent SARS patients (Figure 2). All 18 patients had positive IgG at 6 months and at 1 year (i.e., 100% positive); only 1 patient became IgG negative at 2 years. However, at 3 years, the positive percentage dropped to 55.56%. The reduction of OD values mimicked that of the positive percentage, again at a faster rate. The average OD readings dropped from 0.94 at 6 months to 0.64 at 1 year, which represents a reduction of 33.33%. The OD further dropped to 0.52 (45.83% reduction) by 2 years and to 0.25 by 3 years.
Figure 2

Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 18 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with a complete collection of sequential serum samples at the time points shown. The 18 patients were selected from the cohort of 176 patients for whom transmission history was known. OD, optical density.

Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 18 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with a complete collection of sequential serum samples at the time points shown. The 18 patients were selected from the cohort of 176 patients for whom transmission history was known. OD, optical density.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, the 3-year follow-up conducted in this study is the longest longitudinal study ever reported. With a large number of patients who had confirmed transmission history (176) and a complete dataset for 18, the level of confidence is high that the results obtained in this study are representative for convalescent SARS patients. Similar results have been reported from longitudinal studies of SARS patients with smaller cohort size (18–98 patients) and shorter follow-up period (240 days to 2 years) (–). The general trend of IgM peaking at ≈1 month after symptom onset and IgG peaking at 2–4 months was consistent among different studies. Our results provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV antibodies are reduced >3 years after the symptom onset. Because antibodies play an important role in protective immunity against SARS-CoV (), the findings from this study will have important implications with regard to assessing risk for reinfection among previously exposed populations (e.g., hospital staff) and evaluating the duration of antibody-mediated immunity that any candidate vaccine could provide.
  14 in total

Review 1.  SARS coronavirus: a new challenge for prevention and therapy.

Authors:  Kathryn V Holmes
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Cross-host evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in palm civet and human.

Authors:  Huai-Dong Song; Chang-Chun Tu; Guo-Wei Zhang; Sheng-Yue Wang; Kui Zheng; Lian-Cheng Lei; Qiu-Xia Chen; Yu-Wei Gao; Hui-Qiong Zhou; Hua Xiang; Hua-Jun Zheng; Shur-Wern Wang Chern; Feng Cheng; Chun-Ming Pan; Hua Xuan; Sai-Juan Chen; Hui-Ming Luo; Duan-Hua Zhou; Yu-Fei Liu; Jian-Feng He; Peng-Zhe Qin; Ling-Hui Li; Yu-Qi Ren; Wen-Jia Liang; Ye-Dong Yu; Larry Anderson; Ming Wang; Rui-Heng Xu; Xin-Wei Wu; Huan-Ying Zheng; Jin-Ding Chen; Guodong Liang; Yang Gao; Ming Liao; Ling Fang; Li-Yun Jiang; Hui Li; Fang Chen; Biao Di; Li-Juan He; Jin-Yan Lin; Suxiang Tong; Xiangang Kong; Lin Du; Pei Hao; Hua Tang; Andrea Bernini; Xiao-Jing Yu; Ottavia Spiga; Zong-Ming Guo; Hai-Yan Pan; Wei-Zhong He; Jean-Claude Manuguerra; Arnaud Fontanet; Antoine Danchin; Neri Niccolai; Yi-Xue Li; Chung-I Wu; Guo-Ping Zhao
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-02-04       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Longitudinal analysis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus-specific antibody in SARS patients.

Authors:  Shan-Chwen Chang; Jann-Tay Wang; Li-Min Huang; Yee-Chun Chen; Chi-Tai Fang; Wang-Huei Sheng; Jiun-Ling Wang; Chong-Jen Yu; Pan-Chyr Yang
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2005-12

4.  Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses.

Authors:  Wendong Li; Zhengli Shi; Meng Yu; Wuze Ren; Craig Smith; Jonathan H Epstein; Hanzhong Wang; Gary Crameri; Zhihong Hu; Huajun Zhang; Jianhong Zhang; Jennifer McEachern; Hume Field; Peter Daszak; Bryan T Eaton; Shuyi Zhang; Lin-Fa Wang
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-like virus in Chinese horseshoe bats.

Authors:  Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo; Kenneth S M Li; Yi Huang; Hoi-Wah Tsoi; Beatrice H L Wong; Samson S Y Wong; Suet-Yi Leung; Kwok-Hung Chan; Kwok-Yung Yuen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Longitudinal profile of immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM, and IgA antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus nucleocapsid protein in patients with pneumonia due to the SARS coronavirus.

Authors:  Patrick C Y Woo; Susanna K P Lau; Beatrice H L Wong; Kwok-hung Chan; Chung-ming Chu; Hoi-wah Tsoi; Yi Huang; J S Malik Peiris; Kwok-yung Yuen
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2004-07

7.  Isolation and characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in southern China.

Authors:  Y Guan; B J Zheng; Y Q He; X L Liu; Z X Zhuang; C L Cheung; S W Luo; P H Li; L J Zhang; Y J Guan; K M Butt; K L Wong; K W Chan; W Lim; K F Shortridge; K Y Yuen; J S M Peiris; L L M Poon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-09-04       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 8.  Review of bats and SARS.

Authors:  Lin-Fa Wang; Zhengli Shi; Shuyi Zhang; Hume Field; Peter Daszak; Bryan T Eaton
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.883

Review 9.  Severe acute respiratory syndrome.

Authors:  J S M Peiris; Y Guan; K Y Yuen
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 53.440

10.  Neutralizing antibodies in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus infection.

Authors:  Yuchun Nie; Guangwen Wang; Xuanling Shi; Hong Zhang; Yan Qiu; Zhongping He; Wei Wang; Gewei Lian; Xiaolei Yin; Liying Du; Lili Ren; Jianwei Wang; Xiong He; Taisheng Li; Hongkui Deng; Mingxiao Ding
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2004-08-02       Impact factor: 5.226

View more
  167 in total

Review 1.  Practical guidance for clinical laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing.

Authors:  Carmen Charlton; Jamil Kanji; Vanessa Tran; Julianne Kus; Jonathan Gubbay; Carla Osiowy; Jason Robinson; Inna Sekirov; Michael Drebot; Todd Hatchette; Derek Stein; Nadia El-Gabalawy; Amanda Lang; Lei Jiao; Paul Levett; Heidi Wood; Christian Therrien; L Robbin Lindsay; Muhammad Morshed; Jessica Forbes; Antonia Dibernardo
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2021-05-07

Review 2.  Certainty of success: three critical parameters in coronavirus vaccine development.

Authors:  David C Kaslow
Journal:  NPJ Vaccines       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 7.344

3.  How the pandemic might play out in 2021 and beyond.

Authors:  Megan Scudellari
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Potent and persistent antibody responses against the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV spike protein in recovered patients.

Authors:  Zhiliang Cao; Lifeng Liu; Lanying Du; Chao Zhang; Shibo Jiang; Taisheng Li; Yuxian He
Journal:  Virol J       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 4.099

Review 5.  Age-related susceptibility to coronavirus infections: role of impaired and dysregulated host immunity.

Authors:  Rudragouda Channappanavar; Stanley Perlman
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 14.808

6.  Virus-specific memory CD8 T cells provide substantial protection from lethal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection.

Authors:  Rudragouda Channappanavar; Craig Fett; Jincun Zhao; David K Meyerholz; Stanley Perlman
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 5.103

7.  Performance of Three SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays, Three Rapid Lateral Flow Tests, and a Novel Bead-Based Affinity Surrogate Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Human Serum.

Authors:  Manuel Krone; Julia Gütling; Johannes Wagener; Thiên-Trí Lâm; Christoph Schoen; Ulrich Vogel; August Stich; Florian Wedekink; Jörg Wischhusen; Thomas Kerkau; Niklas Beyersdorf; Silvana Klingler; Simone Backes; Lars Dölken; Georg Gasteiger; Oliver Kurzai; Alexandra Schubert-Unkmeir
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  Challenges and Issues of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Authors:  Sophie Blumental; Patrice Debré
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-05-14

Review 9.  SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and implications for vaccine development.

Authors:  Firzan Nainu; Rufika Shari Abidin; Muh Akbar Bahar; Andri Frediansyah; Talha Bin Emran; Ali A Rabaan; Kuldeep Dhama; Harapan Harapan
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Lack of Serologic Evidence of Infection Among Health Care Personnel and Other Contacts of First 2 Confirmed Patients With COVID-19 in Illinois, 2020.

Authors:  Tristan D McPherson; Isaac Ghinai; Alison M Binder; Brandi D Freeman; Chantel Hoskin Snelling; Jennifer C Hunter; Kristin M Anderson; Polly Davenport; Deborah L Rudd; Mujeeb Zafer; Demian Christiansen; Kiran Joshi; Rachel Rubin; Stephanie R Black; Marielle J Fricchione; Massimo Pacilli; Kelly A Walblay; Jacqueline Korpics; Darcie Moeller; Pearl Quartey-Kumapley; Chen Wang; E Matt Charles; Judy Kauerauf; Megan T Patel; Vishal S Disari; Marc Fischer; Max W Jacobs; Sandra N Lester; Claire M Midgley; Mohammed Ata Ur Rasheed; Heather E Reese; Jennifer R Verani; Megan Wallace; John T Watson; Natalie J Thornburg; Jennifer E Layden; Hannah L Kirking
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 2.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.