Literature DB >> 32511324

Analysis of Serologic Cross-Reactivity Between Common Human Coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 Using Coronavirus Antigen Microarray.

Saahir Khan1, Rie Nakajima2, Aarti Jain2, Rafael Ramiro de Assis2, Al Jasinskas2, Joshua M Obiero2, Oluwasanmi Adenaiye3, Sheldon Tai3, Filbert Hong3, Donald K Milton3, Huw Davies2, Philip L Felgner2.   

Abstract

The current practice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection relies on PCR testing of nasopharyngeal or respiratory specimens in a symptomatic patient at high epidemiologic risk. This testing strategy likely underestimates the true prevalence of infection, creating the need for serologic methods to detect infections missed by the limited testing to date. Here, we describe the development of a coronavirus antigen microarray containing immunologically significant antigens from SARS-CoV-2, in addition to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, common human coronavirus strains, and other common respiratory viruses. A preliminary study of human sera collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic demonstrates overall high IgG reactivity to common human coronaviruses and low IgG reactivity to epidemic coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2, with some cross-reactivity of conserved antigenic domains including S2 domain of spike protein and nucleocapsid protein. This array can be used to answer outstanding questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection, including whether baseline serology for other coronaviruses impacts disease course, how the antibody response to infection develops over time, and what antigens would be optimal for vaccine development.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32511324      PMCID: PMC7239054          DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.24.006544

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  bioRxiv


Background

The 2019 novel coronavirus strain (SARS-CoV-2) originating in Wuhan, China has become a worldwide pandemic with significant morbidity and mortality estimates up to 2% of confirmed cases. The current case definition for confirmed COVID-19 due to SARSCoV-2 infection relies on PCR-positive nasopharyngeal or respiratory specimens, with testing largely determined by presence of fever or respiratory symptoms in an individual at high epidemiologic risk. However, this case definition likely underestimates the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as individuals who develop subclinical infection that does not produce fever or respiratory symptoms are unlikely to be tested, and testing by PCR of nasopharyngeal or respiratory specimens is unlikely to be 100% sensitive in detecting subclinical infection. Widespread testing within the United States is also severely limited by the lack of available testing kits and testing capacity limitations of available public and private laboratories. Therefore, the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is currently unknown, and the sensitivity of PCR to detect infection is also unknown. Serology can play an important role in defining both the prevalence of and sensitivity of PCR for SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly for subclinical infection. This point is demonstrated by analogy with influenza virus, for which a meta-analysis of available literature measured the fraction of asymptomatic infections detected by PCR as approximately 16%, while the fraction of asymptomatic infections detected by seroconversion was measured as approximately 75%[1]. The seroprevalence of common human coronaviruses is known to increase throughout childhood to near 100% by adolescence[2]. Thus, any serologic methodology to estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 needs to identify and rule out cross-reactivity with these common human coronavirus strains. One challenge in applying serology to SARS-CoV-2 is that the choice of antigen and choice of assay is less well defined for coronavirus than more well studied viruses such as influenza. However, prior approaches to serologic detection of infection with emerging coronaviruses including SARS and MERS have focused on the S1 domain of the spike (S) glycoprotein and the nucleocapsid (N) protein, which are considered the immunodominant antigens for these viruses[3]. In particular, the S1 domain is strain-specific, while the N protein shows cross-reactivity across strains. The assay methodologies used for serologic detection of coronavirus infection include binding and neutralization assays. These methodologies have been shown to be well correlated[4]. However, neutralization assays require viral culture, which must be performed in high-level biosafety containment units for emerging coronaviruses with high epidemic potential such as SARS-CoV-2. Conversely, binding assays such as ELISA can be readily performed with widely available reagents and equipment so are field deployable and suitable for point of care testing. The protein microarray methodology has been widely used to simultaneously perform binding assays against hundreds of antigens printed onto a nitrocellulose-coated slide for detection of multiple antibody isotypes[5]. This methodology was recently demonstrated for simultaneous measurement of IgG and IgA antibodies against over 250 antigens from diverse strains and subtypes of influenza[6]. This methodology has previously been applied to detect antibodies against the S1 domains of SARS and MERS coronaviruses[7].

Methodology

Specimen Collection

The blood specimens used in this study were collected for a larger study where residents of a college resident community in an Eastern university were monitored prospectively to identify acute respiratory infection (ARI) cases using questionnaires and RT-qPCR, so as to characterize contagious phenotypes including social connections, built environment, and immunologic phenotypes[8]. From among de-identified blood specimens for which future research use authorization was obtained, five specimens that showed high IgG reactivity against human coronaviruses in the larger study were chosen for validation of the coronavirus antigen microarray.

Antigen Microarray

The coronavirus antigen microarray used in this investigation includes 67 antigens across subtypes expressed in either baculovirus or HEK-293 cells (see Tables 1–3). These antigens were provided by Sino Biological Inc. (Wayne, PA) as either catalog products, or service products. The antigens were printed onto microarrays, probed with human sera, and analyzed as previously described (Figure 1)[6,9,10].
Table 1.

Content of coronavirus antigen microarray.

VirusSubtypesAntigensReplicatesSpots
CoronavirusHKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E12448
MERS9436
SARS5420
2019-nCoV7428
Total33132
RSVA, B8432
MetapneumovirusA, B3412
Parainfluenza1, 3, 45420
Adenovirus3, 4, 76424
InfluenzaH1N1, H3N2, H5N1, H7N9, B(Yam), B(Vic)12448
Total34136
Table 3.

Non-coronavirus respiratory virus antigens on microarray.

VirusSubtypeStrainProteinUniProt/GenBankExpressionSynthesisConstructCatalogue No
RSVALA2-94/2013FA0A023RA53Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-526)-His-CCustom
RSVALA2-94/2013GA0A076FRQ0HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA64-321)-His-CCustom
RSVAA2FInsect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-529)-His-C11049-V08B
RSVArsb1734GHEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA66-297)-His-C11070-V08H
RSVARSS-2FInsect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-529)-His-C40037-V08B
RSVBTH-10526/2014FK7WLI9Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-525)-His-CCustom
RSVBTH-10526/2014GA0A142MLK4HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA64-310)-His-CCustom
RSVBB1GHEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA67-299)-His-C13029-V08H
hMPVAPER/CFI0320/2010/AGHEK293Sino Biological52N-228N-HisCustom
hMPVBPER/CFI0466/2010/BGHEK293Sino Biological52D-238S-HisCustom
hMPVBPER/CFI0320/2010/AFHEK293Sino Biological280D-490G-HisCustom
Parainfluenza112O3FA0A1V0E1X5Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA22-497)-His-CCustom
Parainfluenza112O3HA0A1B2CW87Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-His-(AA60-575)-CCustom
Parainfluenza3USA/10991B/2010HT1UD13Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-His-(AA55-575)-CCustom
Parainfluenza4hPIV-4b/10-H2/2016FA0A1V0E1N6Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA22-486)-His-CCustom
Parainfluenza4hPIV-4b/10-H2/2016HA0A1V0E1N4Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-His-(AA48-575)-CCustom
Adenovirus3hAdV-3/45659FiberP04501E. coliSino BiologicalN-His-[Prot]-CCustom
Adenovirus3hAdV-3/45659PentonQ2Y0H9Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-His-[Prot]-CCustom
Adenovirus4hAdV-4/28280FiberP36844Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-[Prot]-His-CCustom
Adenovirus4hAdV-4/28280PentonQ2KSF3Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-[Prot]-His-CCustom
Adenovirus7Adeno7 10519FiberP15141Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-His-[Prot]-CCustom
Adenovirus7Adeno7 10519PentonQ2KS58Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-[Prot]-His-CCustom
InfluenzaH1N1A/Beijing/22808/2009HA1ADD64203.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-344)-His-C40035-V08H1
InfluenzaH1N1A/Beijing/22808/2009HA1+HA2ADD64203.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-529)-His-C40035-V08H
InfluenzaH3N2A/Texas/50/2012HA1AGL07159.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-345)-His-C40354-V08H1
InfluenzaH3N2A/Texas/50/2012HA1+HA2AGL07159.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-530)-His-C40354-V08B
InfluenzaBB/Malaysia/2506/2004HA1CO05957.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-362)-His-C11716-V08H1
InfluenzaBB/Malaysia/2506/2004HA1+HA2CO05957.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-556)-His-C11716-V08H
InfluenzaBB/Phuket/3073/2013HA1EPI529345HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-361)-His-C40498-V08H1
InfluenzaBB/Phuket/3073/2013HA1+HA2EPI529345Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-547)-His-C40498-V08B
InfluenzaH5N1A/Vietnam/1203/2004HA1AAW80717.1HEK293Sino Biological(AA1-342)-mFcg1-His10003-V06H1
InfluenzaH5N1A/Vietnam/1203/2004HA1+HA2AAW80717.1HEK293Sino Biological(AA1-531)-mFcg1-His10003-V06H3
InfluenzaH7N9A/Anhui/1/2013HA1AGJ51953.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-338)-His-C40103-V08H1
InfluenzaH7N9A/Anhui/1/2013HA1+HA2AGJ51953.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-524)-His-C40103-V08H
Figure 1.

Schematic of antigen microarray printing, probing, imaging, and analysis. Reprinted with permission[6].

Briefly, lyophilized antigens were reconstituted to a concentration of 0.1 mg/mL in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with 0.001% Tween-20 (T-PBS) and then printed onto nitrocellulose-coated slides from Grace Bio Labs (GBL, Bend, OR) using an OmniGrid 100 microarray printer (GeneMachines). The microarray slides were probed with human sera diluted 1:100 in 1x GVS Fast Blocking Buffer (Fischer Scientific) overnight at 4°C, washed with T-TBS buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween-20 in ddH2O adjusted to pH 7.5 and filtered) 3 times for 5 minutes each, labeled with secondary antibodies to human IgG conjugated to quantum dot fluorophore for 2 hours at room temperature, and then washed with T-TBS 3 times for 5 minutes each and dried. The slides were imaged using ArrayCam imager (Grace Bio Labs, Bend, OR) to measure background-subtracted median spot fluorescence. Non-specific binding of secondary antibodies was subtracted using saline control. Mean fluorescence of the 4 replicate spots for each antigen was used for analysis.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the IgG reactivity as measured by mean fluorescence across antigen replicates. T-test or F-test were used to test for the mean differences in continuous variables across infection groups. All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Overall, the 5 sera tested on the coronavirus antigen microarray all showed high IgG seroreactivity to antigens from common human coronaviruses and other respiratory viruses with known seasonal circulation versus low IgG seroreactivity to antigens from epidemic viruses that were not circulating at time of collection (Figure 2). Specifically, 4 of the 5 sera showed high IgG seroreactivity across the 4 common human coronaviruses, while all of the sera showed low IgG seroreactivity to SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. All 5 sera showed high IgG seroreactivity to RSV and parainfluenza viruses, while 3 of the 5 sera showed high IgG seroreactivity to adenoviruses. For influenza, all 5 sera showed high IgG seroreactivity to H1N1 and H3N2 influenza A and influenza B strains but low IgG seroreactivity to H5N1 and H7N9 influenza A strains.
Figure 2.

IgG seroreactivity as measured by mean fluorescence intensity of 5 serum specimens from naïve population on coronavirus antigen microarray.

With respect to specific antigens, the S1 domain of the spike protein including the receptor-binding domain (RBD) demonstrates very low cross-reactivity between epidemic coronaviruses and common human coronaviruses, whereas the S2 domain of the spike protein and the nucleocapsid protein (NP) show low-level cross-reactivity between these coronavirus subtypes. Similarly, the head domain of influenza hemagglutinin (HA1) is not cross-reactive between seasonal and avian influenza strains, whereas the stalk domain (HA2) is cross-reactive between influenza virus subgroups, as seen between H1N1 and H5N1 influenza viruses.

Discussion

This pilot study yields several insights into cross-reactivity of common human coronavirus antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 antigens. The antibodies to the S1 and RBD domains of spike protein are highly subtype-specific, consistent with the high variability in these sequences between different human coronaviruses. Conversely, the S2 domain of spike protein and NP protein are more cross-reactive, consistent with these sequences being highly conserved across coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 has caused a worldwide pandemic despite likely pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies to S2 domain and NP protein in most people, indicating that these antibodies are likely not protective, whereas antibodies to S1 and RBD domains are more likely to be protective. This observation favors a vaccination strategy based on S1 or RBD domains of spike protein over a vaccination strategy that also includes S2 domain or NP protein. In addition, S1 and RBD domains are more likely to generate subtype-specific serologic tests for population surveillance studies. In addition, a key unexplained finding during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has been the low incidence of infection in children aged 15 and younger. This observation generates two related hypotheses: adults may have pre-existing antibodies against antigenically distinct coronaviruses that produce an ineffective humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection (antibody-dependent enhancement as demonstrated for dengue virus), or children younger than 15 may have initially encountered a coronavirus that is more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 so are more protected against this infection (immunologic imprinting or original antigenic sin as demonstrated for influenza virus). Both of these hypotheses would be informed by comparing the level of cross-reactive coronavirus antibodies in pediatric and adult cohorts and correlating these antibodies with incidence of severe disease.

Conclusions

A coronavirus antigen microarray has been constructed with antigens from epidemic coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2 and common human coronaviruses, in addition to other common respiratory viruses. A pilot study of 5 naïve human sera shows high IgG seroreactivity to common human coronaviruses but low IgG seroreactivity to SARS-CoV-2, with some cross-reactivity seen for S2 domain of spike protein and nucleocapsid protein. Further studies are needed including with SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera to fully realize the potential of this novel methodology to characterize the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies on the disease course.
Table 2.

Coronavirus antigens on microarray.

VirusSubtypeStrainProteinUniProt/GenBankExpressionSynthesisConstructCatalogue No
CoronavirusNL63NL63S1A0A1L2YVI8HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA19-717)-His-C40600-V08H
CoronavirusNL63NL63S1+S2A0A1L2YVI8Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA19-1296)-His-C40604-V08B
Coronavirus229E229ES1A0A1L7B942HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA16-536)-His-C40601-v08H
Coronavirus229E229ES1+S2A0A1L7B942Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA16-1115)-His-C40605-V08B
CoronavirusHKU1HKU1S1YP_173238.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-760)-His-C40021-V08H
CoronavirusHKU1HKU1S1Q0ZME7HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA13-756)-His-C40602-V08H
CoronavirusHKU1HKU1S1+S2Q0ZME7Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA13-1295)-His-C40606-V08B
CoronavirusHKU1HKU1HEQ0ZME7HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA16-394)-His-CCustom
CoronavirusHKU23HKU23-368FNPAHN64796.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-448)-His-C40458-V08B
CoronavirusOC43OC43S1AVR40344.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA13-533)-His-CCustom
CoronavirusOC43OC43S1+S2AVR40344.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA13-1304)-His-C40607-V08B
CoronavirusOC43OC43HEATN39879.2HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA16-394)-His-C40603-V08H
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1-RBDAFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA383-502)-Fc-C40071-V05B
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1-RBDAFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA383-502)-rFc-C40071-V31B
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1-RBDAFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA367-606)-rFc-C40071-V31B1
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1-RBDAFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA367-606)-His-C40071-V08B1
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1AFS88936.1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA1-725)-His-C40069-V08H
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1AFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-725)-His-C40069-V08B1
CoronavirusMERSMERSS1+S2AFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-1297)-His-C40069-V08B
CoronavirusMERSMERSS2AFS88936.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA726-1296)-His-C40070-V08B
CoronavirusMERSMERSNPAFS88943.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-413)-His-C40068-V08B
CoronavirusSARSSARSS1-RBDAAX16192.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA306-527)-Fc-C40150-V31B2
CoronavirusSARSSARSS1-RBDAAX16192.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA306-527)-His-C40150-V08B2
CoronavirusSARSSARSS1AAX16192.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-667)-His-C40150-V08B1
CoronavirusSARSSARSNPNP_828858.1Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA1-422)-His-C40143-V08B
CoronavirusSARSSARSPLproAAX16193.1E. coliSino BiologicalN-(AA1541-1859)-His-C40524-V08E
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS1-RBDHEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA)-mFc-C40592-V05H
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA)-His-C40591-V08H
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA)-Fc-C40591-V02H
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS1HEK293Sino BiologicalN-(AA)-Fc-C40591-V05H1
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS2Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA)-His-C40590-V08B
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVS1+S2Insect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA)-His-C40589-V08B1
Coronavirus2019-nCoV2019-nCoVNPInsect CellsSino BiologicalN-(AA)-His-C40588-V08B
  10 in total

1.  Use of an Influenza Antigen Microarray to Measure the Breadth of Serum Antibodies Across Virus Subtypes.

Authors:  Saahir Khan; Aarti Jain; Omid Taghavian; Rie Nakajima; Algis Jasinskas; Medalyn Supnet; Jiin Felgner; Jenny Davies; Rafael Ramiro de Assis; Sharon Jan; Joshua Obiero; Erwin Strahsburger; Egest J Pone; Li Liang; D Huw Davies; Philip L Felgner
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 2.  Review Article: The Fraction of Influenza Virus Infections That Are Asymptomatic: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nancy H L Leung; Cuiling Xu; Dennis K M Ip; Benjamin J Cowling
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Profiling the humoral immune response to infection by using proteome microarrays: high-throughput vaccine and diagnostic antigen discovery.

Authors:  D Huw Davies; Xiaowu Liang; Jenny E Hernandez; Arlo Randall; Siddiqua Hirst; Yunxiang Mu; Kimberly M Romero; Toai T Nguyen; Mina Kalantari-Dehaghi; Shane Crotty; Pierre Baldi; Luis P Villarreal; Philip L Felgner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Specific serology for emerging human coronaviruses by protein microarray.

Authors:  C Reusken; H Mou; G J Godeke; L van der Hoek; B Meyer; M A Müller; B Haagmans; R de Sousa; N Schuurman; U Dittmer; P Rottier; A Osterhaus; C Drosten; B J Bosch; M Koopmans
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2013-04-04

5.  Evaluation of quantum dot immunofluorescence and a digital CMOS imaging system as an alternative to conventional organic fluorescence dyes and laser scanning for quantifying protein microarrays.

Authors:  Aarti Jain; Omid Taghavian; Derek Vallejo; Emmanuel Dotsey; Dan Schwartz; Florian G Bell; Chad Greef; D Huw Davies; Jennipher Grudzien; Abraham P Lee; Philip L Felgner; Li Liang
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.984

6.  Evaluation of serologic and antigenic relationships between middle eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus and other coronaviruses to develop vaccine platforms for the rapid response to emerging coronaviruses.

Authors:  Sudhakar Agnihothram; Robin Gopal; Boyd L Yount; Eric F Donaldson; Vineet D Menachery; Rachel L Graham; Trevor D Scobey; Lisa E Gralinski; Mark R Denison; Maria Zambon; Ralph S Baric
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 5.226

7.  Protein Microarray Analysis of the Specificity and Cross-Reactivity of Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin-Specific Antibodies.

Authors:  Rie Nakajima; Medalyn Supnet; Algis Jasinskas; Aarti Jain; Omid Taghavian; Joshua Obiero; Donald K Milton; Wilbur H Chen; Michael Grantham; Richard Webby; Florian Krammer; Darrick Carter; Philip L Felgner; D Huw Davies
Journal:  mSphere       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 4.389

8.  Ventilation and laboratory confirmed acute respiratory infection (ARI) rates in college residence halls in College Park, Maryland.

Authors:  Shengwei Zhu; Sara Jenkins; Kofi Addo; Mohammad Heidarinejad; Sebastian A Romo; Avery Layne; Joshua Ehizibolo; Daniel Dalgo; Nicholas W Mattise; Filbert Hong; Oluwasanmi O Adenaiye; Jacob P Bueno de Mesquita; Barbara J Albert; Rhonda Washington-Lewis; Jennifer German; Sheldon Tai; Somayeh Youssefi; Donald K Milton; Jelena Srebric
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 9.621

9.  First infection by all four non-severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronaviruses takes place during childhood.

Authors:  Weimin Zhou; Wen Wang; Huijuan Wang; Roujian Lu; Wenjie Tan
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.090

10.  Examination of seroprevalence of coronavirus HKU1 infection with S protein-based ELISA and neutralization assay against viral spike pseudotyped virus.

Authors:  C M Chan; Herman Tse; S S Y Wong; P C Y Woo; S K P Lau; L Chen; B J Zheng; J D Huang; K Y Yuen
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.168

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.