Literature DB >> 32209163

Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020.

Anu Haveri1, Teemu Smura2, Suvi Kuivanen2, Pamela Österlund1, Jussi Hepojoki2,3, Niina Ikonen1, Marjaana Pitkäpaasi1, Soile Blomqvist1, Esa Rönkkö1, Anu Kantele4, Tomas Strandin2, Hannimari Kallio-Kokko5, Laura Mannonen5, Maija Lappalainen5, Markku Broas6, Miao Jiang1,7, Lotta Siira1, Mika Salminen1, Taneli Puumalainen1, Jussi Sane1, Merit Melin1, Olli Vapalahti2,5, Carita Savolainen-Kopra1.   

Abstract

The first case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Finland was confirmed on 29 January 2020. No secondary cases were detected. We describe the clinical picture and laboratory findings 3-23 days since the first symptoms. The SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 virus strain was isolated, the genome showing a single nucleotide substitution to the reference strain from Wuhan. Neutralising antibody response appeared within 9 days along with specific IgM and IgG response, targeting particularly nucleocapsid and spike proteins.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibodies; coronavirus; humoral immunity; immunofluorescence assay; microneutralisation test; western blotting; whole-genome sequencing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32209163      PMCID: PMC7096774          DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.11.2000266

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Euro Surveill        ISSN: 1025-496X


On 31 December 2019, a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown aetiology was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China [1]. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was isolated by Chinese scientists on 7 January 2020. To date, the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is spreading throughout the world. Here we describe the timeline of events around the first COVID-19 case imported to Finland, and summarise the clinical, molecular and serological data. Successful SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 isolation enabled us to use the cytopathic effect (CPE)-based microneutralisation (MN) assay to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralising antibody levels. Diagnostic serum samples of the case and three close contacts were analysed and compared with serum samples from the Finnish population collected in 2019.

Clinical presentation and laboratory confirmation of the case

The first COVID-19 case in Finland was a female Chinese tourist in her 30s, who had left Wuhan on 22 January and arrived in Finland on 23 January. Her first symptoms were a runny nose on 26 January and nausea on 27 January. Because of high fever (39 °C), weakness and cough she sought medical attention on 28 January. Suspicion of COVID-19 led to her direct transfer to the Lapland Central Hospital in Rovaniemi, where she was isolated and sampled on 28 and 29 January for laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Figure 1). SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed from nasopharyngeal samples on 29 January by the Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB), and further confirmed at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) (Table). Both laboratories performed real-time RT-PCR testing for three targets: the envelope (E), the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and the nucleocapsid (N). Primers and probes were based on the Corman et al. method [2]. Cycle threshold (Ct) values above 37 were considered negative.
Figure 1

Timeline of events around the first COVID-19 case imported to Finland, January–February 2020

Table

Laboratory data of the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Finland, January–February 2020

Sampling day Day since the first symptomsSpecimenPCR done atERdRpNMNIgMIgG
28 Jan 2020Day 3NPSHUSTHLND30.49ND30.48ND31.59NA NA NA
29 Jan 2020Day 4NPAHUSTHL31.1827.1327.56 28.4328.2928.73NA NA NA
NPSHUSTHL28.1529.5927.1330.8728.8231.78 NA NANA
Serum THLUHNegNegNegNegNegNeg< 4< 20< 20
03 Feb 2020Day 9NPSHUSTHLNegNegNegNegNegNegNA NA NA
SerumUH NDNegNeg608080
04 Feb 2020Day 10NPSHUSTHLNegNegNegNegNegNegNA NA NA
SerumND NDNDND72160160
14 Feb 2020Day 20SerumUH NegNegNeg1603201,280
17 Feb 2020Day 23NPSHUSTHLNegNegNegNegNegNegNA NA NA

E: envelope protein gene; HUS: Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory; IgG: immunoglobulin G; IgM: immunoglobulin M; MN: microneutralisation test; N: nucleocapsid protein gene; NA: not applicable; ND: not done; Neg: negative; NPA: nasopharyngeal aspirate; NPS: nasopharyngeal swab; RdRp: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene; RT-PCR: reverse-transcription PCR; THL: Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare; UH: University of Helsinki.

Timeline of events around the first COVID-19 case imported to Finland, January–February 2020 COVID-19: coronavirus disease. E: envelope protein gene; HUS: Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory; IgG: immunoglobulin G; IgM: immunoglobulin M; MN: microneutralisation test; N: nucleocapsid protein gene; NA: not applicable; ND: not done; Neg: negative; NPA: nasopharyngeal aspirate; NPS: nasopharyngeal swab; RdRp: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene; RT-PCR: reverse-transcription PCR; THL: Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare; UH: University of Helsinki. The case had mild symptoms throughout the isolation period. She was tested PCR-negative in 3 and 4 February samples and, as considered asymptomatic, discharged from hospital on 5 February. One additional sample for serology and PCR was taken on 14 and 17 February, respectively. Altogether 21 close contacts were identified of whom we could reach 17. Fourteen were still in Finland and placed in quarantine for 14 days. Information about three close contacts that had left the country was communicated to the competent authorities in their respective countries. For the remaining four close contacts, we had no contact details. Two of the 21 close contacts were closely co-exposed and therefore sampled on Days 4, 10, 12 and 14 after the first symptoms of the index case. Follow-up of all contacts ended on 11 February without secondary transmission events.

SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 virus isolation

The SARS-CoV-2 virus SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 was isolated in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory in Vero E6 cells from the Day 4 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) specimens (Table). The samples were inoculated into the cells for 1 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2 and fresh culture medium (Eagle's minimum essential medium (EMEM) supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 0.6 μg/mL penicillin, 60 μg/mL streptomycin, 2 mM L-glutamine, 20 mM HEPES) were added for incubation. On the 4th day of incubation, half of the cultures were blind-passaged onto fresh Vero E6 cells and the rest of original passages were incubated further. After 4 days incubation a clear CPE was detected in the NPA-originated passage 2. The propagation of stock virus was done by passaging a low virus dose once again in Vero E6 cells, and virus culture was harvested on the 3rd day. Virus concentration was followed by RT-PCR. The Ct value for virus passage 1 on the 6th day of incubation was 17.65 and for passage 2 on the 2nd day, before any CPE was 20.63, whereas those of the NPS specimen remained at Ct values between 35 and 36.

SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 whole-genome sequencing

Nearly the complete coding region of SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank accession number: MT020781) was sequenced from the NPS collected on Day 4 (Table) and the complete coding region was sequenced from the virus isolate obtained after three passages in Vero E6 cells. The virus had 1 nt substitution C21707T compared with the reference strain Wuhan-Hu-1 collected in Wuhan China, December 2019 (NC_045512) [3] which had led to a histidine to tyrosine (H49Y) substitution in the N-terminal domain of the spike glycoprotein.

Antibody response during the SARS-CoV-2 infection

Serum samples were collected from the index case on Days 4, 9, 10 and 20 from onset of the first symptoms (Figure 1). Presence of serum IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was analysed by immunofluorescence assays (IFA) based on Vero E6 cells infected with passage 4 of the patient’s isolate SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 virus and transferred onto microscope slides and fixed with acetone (Figure 2). Serum samples from the index case were serially diluted and incubated for 2 h for IgM and 30 min for IgG. Antibodies were visualised with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated anti-human IgM or IgG antibodies. While the antibodies were undetectable on Day 4 after onset of symptoms, IgG titres rose to 80 and 1,280 and IgM titres to 80 and 320 on Days 9 and 20, respectively (Table). Random serum samples from staff members of the University of Helsinki (n = 19) did not show specific binding at dilutions greater than 20 (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Immunofluorescence assay of serum samples, COVID-19 index case, Finland, January–February 2020

Immunofluorescence assay of serum samples, COVID-19 index case, Finland, January–February 2020 COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies were detectable by immunofluorescence assay in samples from Days 9, 10 and 20 after onset of illness. Both IgM and IgG were found at a titre of 80 on Day 9, titres on Day 20 were 320 and 1,280. As an example, dilutions 1:20 and 1:160 from the Day 20 sample are shown for, respectively, IgM and IgG of the index case. Dilution 20 shown for the control serum. Mock- and SARS-CoV2-infected Vero E6 cells collected on Day 6 post infection were lysed in Laemmli sample buffer, and Western blotting (WB) of lysates was performed as described previously [4]. At 1:200 dilution, the convalescent serum on Day 20 identified SARS-CoV2 N, S and E protein bands (Figure 3). At higher exposure, all bands were detectable even at 1:1,600 serum dilution (Figure 3).
Figure 3

Western blot of mock- and SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells using patient serum collected 20 days after onset of symptoms, Finland, January–February 2020

Western blot of mock- and SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells using patient serum collected 20 days after onset of symptoms, Finland, January–February 2020 Top left panel: total protein staining (Ponceau S) of the nitrocellulose membrane before probing. Top right panel: strips probed with different dilutions of the patient serum at low exposure. Bottom panel: the same membranes individually contrasted for higher band intensity. The arrows indicate SARS-CoV-2 proteins, the labelling assumes that the migration of SARS-CoV-2 proteins was similar to that of Vero E6-expressed SARS-CoV proteins [23]. The bands migrating at ca 110 and 90 kDa probably represent S1 and S2, respectively. Marker M: Precision Plus Dual Colour Standards (Bio-Rad). The detection was done using Odyssey Infrared Imaging System (LI-COR) using goat anti-human IR800 conjugate at 1:10,000 dilution. SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralising antibody levels were measured in duplicate with the MN test in a BSL-3 laboratory. The serum samples were heat-inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min and 2-fold serially diluted starting from 1:4 in EMEM supplemented with 2% of heat-inactivated FBS and antibiotics. Fifty plaque‐forming units (PFU) of the SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 strain were added to the serum dilutions and incubated for 1 h at 37 °C. Vero E6 cells (5 × 104/well) were added to the virus–serum mix, and the mixture was incubated in 96-well plates for 4 days at 37 °C with 5% CO2. Neutralisation was assessed by CPE. The neutralisation endpoint was determined as the 50% endpoint of the serum that inhibited the SARS-CoV-2 infection observed by CPE of inoculated cells. Diagnostic serum samples from the index case and her three asymptomatic close contacts were studied with the MN test. During the acute phase of infection, no neutralising antibodies were detected. The patient seroconverted for neutralising antibodies between Day 4 and 9, with the titre increasing to 160 on Day 20 (Table). The serum specimens were confirmed not to be toxic or infective to the cells as such. Serum samples taken from the three close contacts tested negative in MN test. We also tested serum samples collected in 2019 from 83 Finnish subjects aged 4 to 89 years and all tested negative. Sera known to be positive for IgG against human coronavirus OC43 and 229E [5] and rabbit or guinea pig antibody against SARS-CoV N protein [6] could not neutralise the virus.

Ethical statement

The investigations were carried out in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 95/46/EC) and the Finnish Personal Data Act (Finlex 523/1999) The Finnish Communicable Diseases Act (Finlex 1227/2016) allows sampling for diagnostic and surveillance purposes. The convalescent serum sample was obtained on 14 February through informed consent of the patient and research permits (TYH2018322, TYH2019263) from the Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory. Finnish population serum samples were collected during 2019. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital (Permission 433/13/03/00/15). Serum samples of University of Helsinki staff members were used under informed consent.

Discussion

In the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak, confirmed cases outside China were mostly imported among travellers from Wuhan [7]. The first case in Finland was detected on 29 January among the first imported cases in Europe. The case presented mild symptoms without pneumonia: runny nose, nausea, high fever, cough, muscular weakness and fatigue. No secondary transmission events were detected despite active follow-up by the Lapland Hospital district and THL. As at 17 March 2020, 358 additional laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been detected in Finland. Many of them are travel-related (mostly from northern Italy and Austria) but there is also local transmission from the travel-related cases. The risk of widespread national community transmission of COVID-19 infection in the European Union, European Economic Area and the United Kingdom in the coming weeks is considered high by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [8]. The sequence of the viral genome of the patient was nearly identical to the reference strain from Wuhan, reflecting an early importation from China. Later sequence information in Finland (up to 2 March) showed clustering with strains circulating in Italy (see nextstrain.org/ncov) [9]. Current guidelines from the World Health Organization for testing COVID-19 recommend collection of both acute and convalescent serum samples from patients for serological testing, which can support the identification of the immune response to a specific viral pathogen [10]. The SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid has been found also in anal swabs and blood [11], however we did not detect it in serum samples in this case. As yet, only limited data are available on antibody responses during SARS-CoV-2 infection [11,12]. Further studies are needed to better understand the seroprevalence of antibodies to different corona viruses in populations and the role of these antibodies in the risk of disease. In accordance with earlier findings [11], we found that both IgM and IgG titres were low or undetectable at on Day 4 (the second day after admission to hospital) yet increasing on Day 9–10, i.e. 5–6 days after the first sampling. Using other detection methods beyond IFA as well as recombinant antigens and analysing samples from a larger number of patients will shed more light on this. The time of first appearance of anti-SARS-CoV antibodies has ranged from Day 3 to 42 and Day 5 to 47 for IgM and IgG antibodies, respectively [13]. The WB of the serum sample collected at convalescence showed a prominent response against the N and S protein, confirming their role as main candidate diagnostic targets for antibody tests. However, the patient serum appeared to recognise also the E protein and the processed S1 and S2 proteins. Although WB detects mainly linear epitopes, the strong antibody response against the S protein correlated well with the results of the MN assay. Monitoring of the binding antibodies is suggested to be a more sensitive method than measuring functional neutralising antibodies for serological detection of human coronavirus (hCoV) infections [14]. However, hCoV OC43 and 229E samples can also cross-react with SARS-CoV ELISA testing [15]. The SARS-CoV-2 CPE-based MN test using live virus appeared to be very specific, while laborious to conduct requiring a BSL-3 laboratory. An increase of at least 4-fold in the neutralising antibodies indicating a positive response was detected at Day 9–10 after the first symptoms and at Day 20, the antibody levels were still increasing. Our findings indicate that the MN assay is specific for functional SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and could be applied in surveillance of population immunity for this virus. The assay can be used as confirmatory tool for SARS-CoV-2 specificity in the development of more accessible diagnostic tools such as assays based on detecting binding antibodies. Previous studies on patients with SARS-CoV infection indicated that the median time for seroconversion was 20 days, by which time 60–75% of patients had IgG against the virus [13,16]. That IgM and IgG antibodies were present within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms in our study suggests that early convalescent patients may be suitable sources of therapeutic antibodies [17]. In accordance with our finding, a recent preprint report on patients admitted to hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in China indicated that the median time to seroconversion was 11–14 days, depending on the immunological assay used [18]. No neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in the close contacts nor in the control population samples collected during 2019 in Finland. A low prevalence (0.21%) of antibodies against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus was reported in the general population of Qatar [19]. A meta-analysis of seroprevalence to SARS-CoV among different human populations yielded an overall low seroprevalence (0.10%), although it was slightly higher (0.23%) among healthcare workers and others who had close contact with SARS patients [20]. Binding and neutralising HCoV antibodies were found to be higher in older adults [14]. In total 97% and 99% of serum samples from healthy adults had antibodies to HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43, respectively [21], and 75% and 65% of the children in the age group 2.5–3.5 years were found to be seropositive for, respectively, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-229E [22]. While it has been suggested that the late seroconversion in most SARS patients reduces the value of serological assays during the incubation and initial phases of SARS [13], serological testing is suggested for the confirmation of a SARS CoV-2 infection [11]. After understanding better the kinetics, specificity and sensitivity of the assays in development, the serological testing may help contact tracing of clusters and have a role in diagnosing acute and past SARS-CoV-2 infections.
  19 in total

1.  [Analysis of the first cluster of cases in a family of novel coronavirus pneumonia in Gansu Province].

Authors:  S L Bai; J Y Wang; Y Q Zhou; D S Yu; X M Gao; L L Li; F Yang
Journal:  Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2020-02-17

2.  Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies to SARS-coronavirus in asymptomatic or subclinical population groups.

Authors:  G M Leung; W W Lim; L-M Ho; T-H Lam; A C Ghani; C A Donnelly; C Fraser; S Riley; N M Ferguson; R M Anderson; A J Hedley
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.451

3.  Viruses and bacteria in the etiology of the common cold.

Authors:  M J Mäkelä; T Puhakka; O Ruuskanen; M Leinonen; P Saikku; M Kimpimäki; S Blomqvist; T Hyypiä; P Arstila
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Generation of Anti-Boa Immunoglobulin Antibodies for Serodiagnostic Applications, and Their Use to Detect Anti-Reptarenavirus Antibodies in Boa Constrictor.

Authors:  Yegor Korzyukov; Udo Hetzel; Anja Kipar; Olli Vapalahti; Jussi Hepojoki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Nextstrain: real-time tracking of pathogen evolution.

Authors:  James Hadfield; Colin Megill; Sidney M Bell; John Huddleston; Barney Potter; Charlton Callender; Pavel Sagulenko; Trevor Bedford; Richard A Neher
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 6.931

6.  Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.

Authors:  Victor M Corman; Olfert Landt; Marco Kaiser; Richard Molenkamp; Adam Meijer; Daniel Kw Chu; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Marie Luisa Schmidt; Daphne Gjc Mulders; Bart L Haagmans; Bas van der Veer; Sharon van den Brink; Lisa Wijsman; Gabriel Goderski; Jean-Louis Romette; Joanna Ellis; Maria Zambon; Malik Peiris; Herman Goossens; Chantal Reusken; Marion Pg Koopmans; Christian Drosten
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-01

7.  Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: a prospective study.

Authors:  J S M Peiris; C M Chu; V C C Cheng; K S Chan; I F N Hung; L L M Poon; K I Law; B S F Tang; T Y W Hon; C S Chan; K H Chan; J S C Ng; B J Zheng; W L Ng; R W M Lai; Y Guan; K Y Yuen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-05-24       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Convalescent plasma as a potential therapy for COVID-19.

Authors:  Long Chen; Jing Xiong; Lei Bao; Yuan Shi
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 25.071

9.  The spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is cleaved in virus infected Vero-E6 cells.

Authors:  Xiao Dong Wu; Bo Shang; Rui Fu Yang; Hao Yu; Zhi Hai Ma; Xu Shen; Yong Yong Ji; Ying Lin; Ya Di Wu; Guo Mei Lin; Lin Tian; Xiao Qing Gan; Sheng Yang; Wei Hong Jiang; Er Hei Dai; Xiao Yi Wang; Hua Liang Jiang; You Hua Xie; Xue Liang Zhu; Gang Pei; Lin Li; Jia Rui Wu; Bing Sun
Journal:  Cell Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 25.617

10.  Incubation period of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections among travellers from Wuhan, China, 20-28 January 2020.

Authors:  Jantien A Backer; Don Klinkenberg; Jacco Wallinga
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-02
View more
  93 in total

Review 1.  Laboratory Tests for COVID-19: A Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications and Implications for Clinical UIse.

Authors:  Daniel Shyu; James Dorroh; Caleb Holtmeyer; Detlef Ritter; Anandhi Upendran; Raghuraman Kannan; Dima Dandachi; Christian Rojas-Moreno; Stevan P Whitt; Hariharan Regunath
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2020 May-Jun

2.  Clinical value analysis of IgM and IgG antibodies detected by nucleic acid in patients with COVID-19.

Authors:  Tao Ding; Nengping Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.060

3.  SARS-CoV-2 serology: Test, test, test, but interpret with caution!

Authors:  William H Bermingham; Thomas Wilding; Sarah Beck; Aarnoud Huissoon
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  Characteristic of IgA and IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in an Italian referral COVID-19 Hospital.

Authors:  Annamaria Carnicelli; Barbara Fiori; Rosalba Ricci; Alfonso Piano; Nicola Bonadia; Eleonora Taddei; Massimo Fantoni; Rita Murri; Antonella Cingolani; Christian Barillaro; Salvatore Lucio Cutuli; Debora Marchesini; Davide Antonio Della Polla; Evelina Forte; Mariella Fuorlo; Luca Di Maurizio; Paola Amorini; Paola Cattani; Francesco Franceschi; Maurizio Sanguinetti
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.472

Review 5.  Animal Models of COVID-19 II. Comparative Immunology.

Authors:  Rebecca T Veenhuis; Caroline J Zeiss
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 1.521

6.  International Forum on the Collection and Use of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma: Responses.

Authors:  Arwa Z Al-Riyami; Thierry Burnouf; Mark Yazer; Darrell Triulzi; Levent Tufan Kumaş; Levent Sağdur; Nil Banu Pelit; Renée Bazin; Salwa I Hindawi; Maha A Badawi; Gopal K Patidar; Hem Chandra Pandey; Rahul Chaurasia; Roberta Maria Fachini; Patrícia Scuracchio; Silvano Wendel; Ai Leen Ang; Kiat Hoe Ong; Pampee Young; Jarkko Ihalainen; Antti Vierikko; Yan Qiu; Ru Yang; Hua Xu; Naomi Rahimi-Levene; Eilat Shinar; Marina Izak; Carlos Alberto Gonzalez; David Martin Ferrari; Paula Verónica Cini; Robby Nur Aditya; Ratti Ram Sharma; Suchet Sachdev; Rekha Hans; Divjot Singh Lamba; Lise Sofie H Nissen-Meyer; Dana V Devine; Cheuk Kwong Lee; Jennifer Nga-Sze Leung; Ivan Fan Ngai Hung; Pierre Tiberghien; Pierre Gallian; Pascal Morel; Khuloud Al Maamari; Zaid Al-Hinai; Hans Vrielink; Cynthia So-Osman; Vincenzo De Angelis; Pierluigi Berti; Angelo Ostuni; Giuseppe Marano; Michel Toungouz Nevessignsky; Magdy El Ekiaby; James Daly; Veronica Hoad; Sinyoung Kim; Karin van den Berg; Marion Vermeulen; Tanya Nadia Glatt; Richard Schäfer; Rita Reik; Richard Gammon; Melissa Lopez; Lise Estcourt; Sheila MacLennan; David Roberts; Vernon Louw; Nancy Dunbar
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 2.996

7.  Kinetics of Neutralizing Antibodies of COVID-19 Patients Tested Using Clinical D614G, B.1.1.7, and B 1.351 Isolates in Microneutralization Assays.

Authors:  Jenni Virtanen; Ruut Uusitalo; Essi M Korhonen; Kirsi Aaltonen; Teemu Smura; Suvi Kuivanen; Sari H Pakkanen; Sointu Mero; Anu Patjas; Marianna Riekkinen; Anu Kantele; Visa Nurmi; Klaus Hedman; Jussi Hepojoki; Tarja Sironen; Eili Huhtamo; Olli Vapalahti
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 5.048

8.  Characterization of antibody response in asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Serena Marchi; Simonetta Viviani; Edmond J Remarque; Antonella Ruello; Emilio Bombardieri; Valentina Bollati; Gregorio P Milani; Alessandro Manenti; Giulia Lapini; Annunziata Rebuffat; Emanuele Montomoli; Claudia M Trombetta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Humoral immune mechanisms involved in protective and pathological immunity during COVID-19.

Authors:  Gunawan Widjaja; Abduladheem Turki Jalil; Heshu Sulaiman Rahman; Walid Kamal Abdelbasset; Dmitry O Bokov; Wanich Suksatan; Mahnaz Ghaebi; Faroogh Marofi; Jamshid Gholizadeh Navashenaq; Farhad Jadidi-Niaragh; Majid Ahmadi
Journal:  Hum Immunol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.850

10.  The pivotal roles of the host immune response in the fine-tuning the infection and the development of the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Wael Alturaiki; Ayman Mubarak; Abduallah Al Jurayyan; Maged Gomaa Hemida
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.