Literature DB >> 32343948

IgA-Ab response to spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19: A longitudinal study.

Andrea Padoan1, Laura Sciacovelli2, Daniela Basso1, Davide Negrini3, Silvia Zuin3, Chiara Cosma2, Diego Faggian2, Paolo Matricardi4, Mario Plebani5.   

Abstract

Validation studies of serological antibody tests must be properly designed for clinical, epidemiological and Public Health objectives such as confirmation of suspected COVID-19 cases, certification of seroconversion after infection, and epidemiological surveillance. We evaluated the kinetics of IgM, IgA and IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in COVID-19 patients with confirmed (rRT-PCR) infection. We found that the IgA response appears and grows early, peaks at week 3, and it is stronger and more persistent than the IgM response. Further longitudinal investigations of virus-specific antibodies functions and of their protective efficacy over time are needed.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32343948      PMCID: PMC7194886          DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.04.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chim Acta        ISSN: 0009-8981            Impact factor:   3.786


Introduction

Accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential, not only to ensure appropriate patient care but also to facilitate identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected people, including asymptomatic carriers who need to be isolated to limit virus spread. Molecular testing to detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome is widely employed to diagnose COVID-19 disease, asymptomatic infections and transmission chains [1]. However, there remains a great need for laboratory assays to measure antibody response and determine seroconversion. While such serological assays are not well suited to detect acute infections, they support a number of highly relevant applications. In fact, serological assays allows the study of immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and the identification of seroconversion; in addition, they may characterize COVID-19 course, and are essential for epidemiological studies and vaccine trials [2]. To provide “the right test at the right time” for the right target, the kinetics of the different antibody (Ab) isotypes production in COVID-19 patients must be thoroughly and preliminary investigated [3]. Aim of this paper is to describe the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgA, and IgM in 19 COVID-19 patients using two different assays.

Methods

We used two different immunoassays to study the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (IgM, IgA, and IgG) for 6 weeks after the onset of symptoms (fever) in adult patients with confirmed (rRT-PCR) COVID-19. Tests were a chemiluminescent (CLIA) assay (MAGLUMI 2000 Plus), measuring SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG and an ELISA measuring specific IgG and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (Euroimmun Medizinische Laboradiagnostika, Luebeck, Germany). Both assays have been performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions, as previously reported [4], [5]. The repeatability values (CV%) of CLIA assay for IgM are 3.06%, 1.84% and 4.05% at 0.61 kAU/L, 1.84 kAU/L and 4.39 kAU/L concentration levels, respectively; for IgG, CVs% are 5.69%, 3.86% and 3.18% at 0.48 kAU/L, 2.99 kAU/L and 10.59 kAU/L concentration levels, respectively. The SARS-CoV-2 IgM cut-off is 1.0 kAU/L, while for IgG the cut-off is 1.1 kAU/L [4]. The repeatability values (CV%) of ELISA for IgA range between 2.4% and 13.7% at a ratio of 1.03 and 0.20, respectively. For IgG, CVs % range between 3.9% and 16% at a ratio of 2.36 and 0.07, respectively. For both IgA and IgG the cut-off is ≥1.1. The study was submitted to the Ethical Committee of the University-Hospital of Padova (protocol number 23307).

Results

The kinetics of IgA-Abs were longitudinally tested in 19 patients (15 males, mean age 65.4 years, SD 14.5, range 22–81 y; 4 females, mean age 63.7 years, SD 7.8, range 53–70 y) for an average follow-up time of 7.5 days (SD 4.9). IgM-Abs kinetics was tested in 51 patients (37 males, men age 69.1 years, SD 13.5, range 22–89 y; 14 females, men age 62.6 years, SD 11.0, range 41–82 y) for 4.6 days (SD 4.0) (Fig. 1 ). Average levels of IgM and IgA antibodies increased since 6–8 days from the onset of COVID-19. Compared to IgM-Ab, IgA-Ab showed persistently higher levels for the whole observation period, with a peak level at 20–22 days. IgM-Ab levels peaked at 10–12 days and significantly declined after 18 days (Fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows the values of IgA-Ab and IgM-Ab in patients with more than 3 serial measurements (n = 18) that are heterogeneous in terms of onset and peak levels, but homogeneous for persistence. An IgA-Ab response to the S protein was detectable already in week 1 in 3/4 (75%) patients (Table 1 ). The values of IgG measured by the two assays was comparable and similar to the one already described with the same CLIA assay [4], being the clinical agreement 90.8% (number of patients = 84; Cohen’s K = 0.83; SE = 0.11) (Supplemental Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Kinetics of IgA (ELISA) and IgM (CLIA) of patients monitored from the onset of symptoms (fever).

Fig. 2

Spaghetti plot of patients with more than 3 serial antibody determinations after the onset of symptoms (fever): A) IgA (n = 17 patients); B) IgM (n = 18 patients).

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of IgA and IgM measurements, subdivided on the basis of each time point, up to 22–23 days (after the onset of fever).

Time from the onset of feverIgA (ratio of absorbances)IgM (kAU/L)
≤5 daysn48
Mean ± SD0.67 ± 0.620.44 ± 0.15
Median (IQR)0.55 (0.25–1.01)0.44(0.33–0.54)
Min – Max0.05–1.520.24–0.69
n of Positive Tests (%)1/4 (25.0%)0/8 (0%)
67 daysn48
Mean ± SD2.00 ± 1.270.82 ± 0.56
Median (IQR)1.64 (1.08–2.99)0.55 (0.48–1.07)
Min-Max0.95–3.770.38–2.01
n of Positive Tests (%)3/4 (75.0%)2/8 (25.0%)
89 daysn618
Mean ± SD7.20 ± 2.912.45 ± 2.90
Median (IQR)8.6 (5.63–9.21)1.02 (0.68–2.11)
Min-Max1.93–9.250.38–8.57
n of Positive Tests (%)6/6 (100%)9/18 (50%)
1011 daysn1117
Mean ± SD5.17 ± 3.643.22 ± 5.40
Median (IQR)4.90 (0.41–8.39)1.09 (0.7–2.12)
Min-Max0.29–9.150.39–18.04
n of Positive Tests (%)8/11 (72.73%)9/17 (52.9%)
1213 daysn614
Mean ± SD7.42 ± 2.185.13 ± 5.18
Median (IQR)8.37 (6.29–9.00)2.81 (1.48–9.21)
Min-Max3.48–9.060.44–16.03
n of Positive Tests (%)6/6 (100.0%)11/14 (78.6%)
1415 daysn617
Mean ± SD6.41 ± 2.632.41 ± 1.82
Median (IQR)6.68 (3.58–8.98)1.93 (1.04–3.53)
Min-Max3.45–9.0830.44–7.40
n of Positive Tests (%)6/6 (100.0%)13/17 (76.5%)
1617 daysn518
Mean ± SD7.74 ± 2.462.50 ± 1.78
Median (IQR)8.67 (8.48–9.04)1.86 (1.22–3.34)
Min-Max3.37–9.130.75–7.69
n of Positive Tests (%)5/5 (100%)16/18 (88.9%)
1819 daysn717
Mean ± SD7.56 ± 2.042.01 ± 1.56
Median (IQR)8.29 (5.49–9.13)1.49 (1.12–2.09)
Min-Max3.90–9.180.89–7.33
n of Positive Tests (%)7/7 (100%)16/17 (94.1%)
2021 daysn812
Mean ± SD8.38 ± 1.441.83 ± 1.18
Median (IQR)9.03 (8.30–9.09)1.36 (1.06–2.12)
Min-Max4.94–9.220.78–4.70
n of Positive Tests (%)8/8 (100%)10/12 (83.3%)
2223 daysn1022
Mean ± SD7.36 ± 2.601.76 ± 1.16
Median (IQR)8.70 (5.16–9.09)1.32 (0.92–2.26)
Min-Max1.95–9.150.38–5.07
n of Positive Tests (%)10/10 (100%)15/22 (68.2%)

n = number of samples obtained within the specified time period.

Kinetics of IgA (ELISA) and IgM (CLIA) of patients monitored from the onset of symptoms (fever). Spaghetti plot of patients with more than 3 serial antibody determinations after the onset of symptoms (fever): A) IgA (n = 17 patients); B) IgM (n = 18 patients). Descriptive statistics of IgA and IgM measurements, subdivided on the basis of each time point, up to 22–23 days (after the onset of fever). n = number of samples obtained within the specified time period.

Discussion and conclusions

Detection of specific antibodies (IgM, IgA and IgG to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) is useful to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with PCR-positive COVID-19, essential in infected but asymptomatic subjects and in COVID-19 patients fist examined many week after the disease onset or in those with a low viral load. These serological assays are also essential to test the susceptibility or resistance to subsequent re-infection [6] and to perform epidemiological and surveillance studies. These tests are also being used to screen donor blood (convalescent plasma) to be transfused to patients with severe COVID-19 [7]. Timing at prescription is crucial for the interpretation of the test results and their rational and effective use for clinical decision. We have previously described the kinetics of IgM and IgG to SARS-CoV-2 using a chemiluminescent (CLIA) assay [4]. Here we show the peculiar characteristics of the kinetics of IgA antibodies in comparison to IgM, as well as their persistence over 38 days of follow-up from COVID-19 onset. The accuracy and reliability of serological methods is highly dependent from the choice of the targeted SARS-CoV-2 antigens and the assay format. The antigens used in the CLIA assay are the S-antigen and the N-protein, while the ELISA detects S1-specific IgA and IgG [3]. The differences observed between assays should be partially explained by differences in the targeted antigens. The spike (S) glycoprotein is densely glycosylated, with 66 N-linked glycosylation sites per trimer [8], a few of which only are the target of neutralizing antibodies [9]. Notwithstanding these fundamental differences, the IgG values measured with the two assays are comparable (Supplemental Figure). We acknowledge that we did not investigate any children and immunocompromised subjects, but only severely sick and adult patients; moreover, the follow-up period was not extended enough to properly test the antibody persistence over time. Nonetheless, given that the levels of spike-binding antibodies targeting S1 is highly correlated to those of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), our results may be useful to design both, passive antibody therapy and vaccine development [10]. However, further longitudinal investigations of virus-specific antibodies functions and of their protective efficacy over time are needed.
  6 in total

1.  Analytical performances of a chemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and antibody kinetics.

Authors:  Andrea Padoan; Chiara Cosma; Laura Sciacovelli; Diego Faggian; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Treatment of 5 Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 With Convalescent Plasma.

Authors:  Chenguang Shen; Zhaoqin Wang; Fang Zhao; Yang Yang; Jinxiu Li; Jing Yuan; Fuxiang Wang; Delin Li; Minghui Yang; Li Xing; Jinli Wei; Haixia Xiao; Yan Yang; Jiuxin Qu; Ling Qing; Li Chen; Zhixiang Xu; Ling Peng; Yanjie Li; Haixia Zheng; Feng Chen; Kun Huang; Yujing Jiang; Dongjing Liu; Zheng Zhang; Yingxia Liu; Lei Liu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation.

Authors:  Daniel Wrapp; Nianshuang Wang; Kizzmekia S Corbett; Jory A Goldsmith; Ching-Lin Hsieh; Olubukola Abiona; Barney S Graham; Jason S McLellan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients.

Authors:  Nisreen M A Okba; Marcel A Müller; Wentao Li; Chunyan Wang; Corine H GeurtsvanKessel; Victor M Corman; Mart M Lamers; Reina S Sikkema; Erwin de Bruin; Felicity D Chandler; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Quentin Le Hingrat; Diane Descamps; Nadhira Houhou-Fidouh; Chantal B E M Reusken; Berend-Jan Bosch; Christian Drosten; Marion P G Koopmans; Bart L Haagmans
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2020-06-21       Impact factor: 6.883

5.  Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein.

Authors:  Alexandra C Walls; Young-Jun Park; M Alejandra Tortorici; Abigail Wall; Andrew T McGuire; David Veesler
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 41.582

6.  Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020.

Authors:  Kenji Mizumoto; Katsushi Kagaya; Alexander Zarebski; Gerardo Chowell
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-03
  6 in total
  102 in total

1.  Longitudinal analysis of antibody decay in convalescent COVID-19 patients.

Authors:  Weiming Xia; Mingfei Li; Ying Wang; Lewis E Kazis; Kim Berlo; Noureddine Melikechi; Gregory R Chiklis
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  COVID-19 severity associates with pulmonary redistribution of CD1c+ DCs and inflammatory transitional and nonclassical monocytes.

Authors:  Ildefonso Sánchez-Cerrillo; Pedro Landete; Beatriz Aldave; Santiago Sánchez-Alonso; Ana Sánchez-Azofra; Ana Marcos-Jiménez; Elena Ávalos; Ana Alcaraz-Serna; Ignacio de Los Santos; Tamara Mateu-Albero; Laura Esparcia; Celia López-Sanz; Pedro Martínez-Fleta; Ligia Gabrie; Luciana Del Campo Guerola; Hortensia de la Fuente; María J Calzada; Isidoro González-Álvaro; Arantzazu Alfranca; Francisco Sánchez-Madrid; Cecilia Muñoz-Calleja; Joan B Soriano; Julio Ancochea; Enrique Martín-Gayo
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 14.808

3.  Dynamics of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent plasma donors.

Authors:  Maurice Steenhuis; Gerard van Mierlo; Ninotska Il Derksen; Pleuni Ooijevaar-de Heer; Simone Kruithof; Floris L Loeff; Lea C Berkhout; Federica Linty; Chantal Reusken; Johan Reimerink; Boris Hogema; Hans Zaaijer; Leo van de Watering; Francis Swaneveld; Marit J van Gils; Berend Jan Bosch; S Marieke van Ham; Anja Ten Brinke; Gestur Vidarsson; Ellen C van der Schoot; Theo Rispens
Journal:  Clin Transl Immunology       Date:  2021-05-16

Review 4.  An Updated Review of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and the Importance of Effective Vaccination Programs in Pandemic Times.

Authors:  Cielo García-Montero; Oscar Fraile-Martínez; Coral Bravo; Diego Torres-Carranza; Lara Sanchez-Trujillo; Ana M Gómez-Lahoz; Luis G Guijarro; Natalio García-Honduvilla; Angel Asúnsolo; Julia Bujan; Jorge Monserrat; Encarnación Serrano; Melchor Álvarez-Mon; Juan A De León-Luis; Miguel A Álvarez-Mon; Miguel A Ortega
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-27

Review 5.  COVID-19 and the immune system.

Authors:  J Paces; Z Strizova; D Smrz; J Cerny
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 1.881

Review 6.  Insights into the virologic and immunologic features of SARS-COV-2.

Authors:  Ceylan Polat; Koray Ergunay
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.337

7.  Twelve-month specific IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain among COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors in Wuhan.

Authors:  Cesheng Li; Ding Yu; Xiao Wu; Hong Liang; Zhijun Zhou; Yong Xie; Taojing Li; Junzheng Wu; Fengping Lu; Lu Feng; Min Mao; Lianzhen Lin; Huanhuan Guo; Shenglan Yue; Feifei Wang; Yan Peng; Yong Hu; Zejun Wang; Jianhong Yu; Yong Zhang; Jia Lu; Haoran Ning; Huichuan Yang; Daoxing Fu; Yanlin He; Dongbo Zhou; Tao Du; Kai Duan; Demei Dong; Kun Deng; Xia Zou; Ya Zhang; Rong Zhou; Yang Gao; Xinxin Zhang; Xiaoming Yang
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Immunomodulation: Immunoglobulin Preparations Suppress Hyperinflammation in a COVID-19 Model via FcγRIIA and FcαRI.

Authors:  Fabian Bohländer; Dennis Riehl; Sabrina Weißmüller; Marcus Gutscher; Jörg Schüttrumpf; Stefanie Faust
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 7.561

9.  Humoral and cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in renal transplant versus dialysis patients: A prospective, multicenter observational study using mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Authors:  Julian Stumpf; Torsten Siepmann; Tom Lindner; Claudia Karger; Jörg Schwöbel; Leona Anders; Robert Faulhaber-Walter; Jens Schewe; Heike Martin; Holger Schirutschke; Kerstin Barnett; Jan Hüther; Petra Müller; Torsten Langer; Thilo Pluntke; Kirsten Anding-Rost; Frank Meistring; Thomas Stehr; Annegret Pietzonka; Katja Escher; Simon Cerny; Hansjörg Rothe; Frank Pistrosch; Harald Seidel; Alexander Paliege; Joachim Beige; Ingolf Bast; Anne Steglich; Florian Gembardt; Friederike Kessel; Hannah Kröger; Patrick Arndt; Jan Sradnick; Kerstin Frank; Anna Klimova; René Mauer; Xina Grählert; Moritz Anft; Arturo Blazquez-Navarro; Timm H Westhoff; Ulrik Stervbo; Torsten Tonn; Nina Babel; Christian Hugo
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2021-07-23

10.  Limited intestinal inflammation despite diarrhea, fecal viral RNA and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA in patients with acute COVID-19.

Authors:  Graham J Britton; Alice Chen-Liaw; Francesca Cossarini; Alexandra E Livanos; Matthew P Spindler; Tamar Plitt; Joseph Eggers; Ilaria Mogno; Ana S Gonzalez-Reiche; Sophia Siu; Michael Tankelevich; Lauren Tal Grinspan; Rebekah E Dixon; Divya Jha; Adriana van de Guchte; Zenab Khan; Gustavo Martinez-Delgado; Fatima Amanat; Daisy A Hoagland; Benjamin R tenOever; Marla C Dubinsky; Miriam Merad; Harm van Bakel; Florian Krammer; Gerold Bongers; Saurabh Mehandru; Jeremiah J Faith
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.