Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with differing severities of coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: A greater understanding of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in an infected population is important for the development of a vaccination. AIM: To investigate SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies in Thai patients with differing severities of COVID-19.
METHODS: Plasma from the following patient groups was examined: 118 adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, 49 patients under investigation (without confirmed infections), 20 patients with other respiratory infections, and 102 healthy control patients. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from EUROIMMUN was performed to assess for IgA and IgG antibodies. The optical density (OD) ratio cutoff for a positive result was 1.1 for IgA and 0.8 for IgG. Additionally, the association of the antibody response with both the severity of disease and the date after onset of symptoms was analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 289 participants were enrolled and 384 samples analyzed from March 10 to May 31, 2020. Patients were categorized, based on their clinical manifestations, as mild (n = 59), moderate (n = 27), or severe (n = 32). The overall sensitivity of IgA and IgG from the samples collected after day 7 of the symptoms was 87.9% (95% CI: 79.8-93.6) and 84.8% (95% CI: 76.2-91.3), respectively. Compared to the mild group, the severe group had significantly higher levels of spike 1 (S1) antigen-specific IgA and IgG. All patients in the moderate and severe groups had S1-specific IgG, while 20% of the patients in the mild group did not have any IgG detected after two weeks after the onset of symptoms. Interestingly, in the severe group, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was significantly higher in males than females (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The serological test for SARS-CoV-2 has a high sensitivity more than two weeks after the onset of illness. Additionally, the serological response differs among patients based on sex as well as the severity of infection.

Introduction

In late December 2019, an outbreak of initially undiagnosed pneumonia was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China [1]. The causative pathogen was later identified as a novel beta coronavirus closely related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV) family and was recently termed SARS-CoV-2 [2]. As of July 30, 2020, more than 17 million people were infected with SARS-CoV-2, and there were up to 670,000 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths [3]. The first case in Thailand was reported on January 12, 2020 and was a traveler from Wuhan [4]. On July 30, 2020, there were 3,304 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in Thailand, with an epicenter in the Bangkok metropolitan area. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) diagnostic assays are a goal standard for case ascertainment and diagnosis [5]. However, validated serological tests provide evidence to compliment virological diagnoses, particularly in or after the second week of infection [6]. A greater understanding of the antibody response in an infected population is beneficial for the development of a vaccine.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is commonly used to access viral-specific antibodies in a quantitative manner, and for decades has been widely accepted as a diagnostic test for antibodies. The sensitive, quantitative measurements of ELISA make it suitable to assess dynamic changes in viral-specific antibodies. In principle, antigen-specific IgM and IgA should be detected in approximately the second week of infection, followed by antigen-specific IgG after the second week of infection. There are several serology platforms currently available, which use various antigens. One large nucleocapsid-based ELISA study assessing 208 samples reported that IgM and IgA were detected 3–6 days after the onset of symptoms with a sensitivity of 85.4% and 92.7%, respectively, while IgG was detected later, 10–18 days after the onset of symptoms, with a sensitivity of 77.9% [7]. Interestingly, another study showed that the seroconversion if IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and a peptide from the spike region was detected as early as that of IgM and reached its peak within six days after seroconversion [8]. Compared to patients with severe cases, a weaker and more rapidly declining antibody response was observed in asymptomatic patients and in those with milder symptoms [9].

The EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA was one of the first CE-marked (European Conformity) diagnostic assays developed and available worldwide. It assesses the response of IgA and IgG to the spike 1 (S1) protein and has been reported to correlate well with the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) [10, 11]. The EUROIMMUN IgG assay received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Thus far, most of the results have been reported from Europe and the US. The objective of this study was to investigate the response of IgA and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in serial blood samples collected from a population of Thai patients with confirmed COVID-19, and the association of these responses with the severity of the illness.

Materials and methods

The present study was conducted at the Thai Red Cross Emerging Infectious Diseases Clinical Center (TRC-EIDCC) and the Faculty of Medicine at Chulalongkorn University. The study present was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine (IRB number 242/63) and the National Blood Center, Thai Red Cross Society (COA No. NBC 5/2020).

Patient population

Confirmed COVID-19 cases were defined as those that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of combined nasopharyngeal and throat swab (NT) samples. RT-PCR testing was performed in the Department of Microbiology of the Faculty of Medicine at Chulalongkorn University. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 kit (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) on a fully automated cobas® 6800 system (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Nucleic acid was automatically extracted from 400 μL of the NT specimens in viral transport medium (VTM) along with added internal control RNA (RNA IC). Subsequent real-time RT-PCR was performed automatically by the system, targeting ORF1a/b and E genes specific to SARS-CoV-2 and pan-Sarbecovirus, respectively.

Classification of the confirmed case was as follows, according to the COVID-19 management guideline of the Thai Ministry of Public Health: 1) mild–asymptomatic or upper respiratory tract infection (URI), 2) moderate–pneumonia without hypoxia, and 3) severe–pneumonia with hypoxia, of which the antiviral treatment was given. The date of the onset of symptoms, disease severity, hospitalization time, and personal demographic information were obtained from hospital medical records. The control group included three subgroups. The first subgroup included 20 plasma samples collected from healthy volunteers in the laboratory and 82 plasma samples leftover from healthy blood donors prior to February 2020. The second subgroup included 49 plasma samples collected from May 1 to May 31, 2020, from patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 with RT-PCR results that were negative for SARS-CoV-2. The third control subgroup included 20 serum specimens collected from May 1 to May 31, 2020 from patients with other infections (Dengue, HBV, HCV, HIV, Mumps, Measles, Rubella, EBV, CMV, VZV, HSV, and Treponema). Plasma and serum were aliquoted and stored at -20°C prior to serological testing.

Laboratory methods

Plasma samples of 10 μL were diluted to 1:101 in sample buffer in order to perform SARS-CoV-2 S1-specific IgA and IgG assays using anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA kits (Euroimmun, Lubeck, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Semi-quantitative results were evaluated by calculating the ratio of extinction at 450 nm of each sample over the calibrator. A cutoff ratio of 1.1 was used for SARS-CoV-2 IgA, as suggested by the package insert. The borderline cutoff ratio of 0.8 for SARS-CoV-2 IgG was assigned as positive.

Statistical analysis

Demographic characteristics were described for each patient. Continuous variables were expressed as the median with an interquartile range (IQR). Differences in continuous and categorical variables between the two groups were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Chi-square test or the Fisher exact test, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also calculated.

Results

Demographics of the population

There were 118 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections from March 10 to May 31, 2020: 59 with mild (upper respiratory symptoms), 27 with moderate (pneumonia without hypoxia), and 32 with severe (pneumonia with hypoxia), with a median age of 38 years (IQR: 27–48). A total of 213 samples collected from 118 patients were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, with 36 patients having 1 sample, 69 patients having 2 samples, and 13 patients having 3 samples. A total of 99 samples were collected seven days after the onset of symptoms. There were 49 PUI who were negative for SARS-CoV-2, with a median age of 47 years (IQR: 28–65 years), 25 males and 24 females. The baseline clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. There were significant differences in age and sex between the groups, with the patients in the severe group being mostly male (66%) and 40–59 years old.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of patients.

	COVID	Mild	Mod	Severe	Non-COVID	P-value
	(N = 118)	(N = 59)	(N = 27)	(N = 32)	(N = 49)
Median Age (IQR)	38 (27–48)	29 (26–39)	39 (27–47)	49 (41–58)	47 (28–65)	<0.001
Age group, n (%)						<0.001
• < 20	6 (5)	4 (7)	1 (4)	1 (3)	3 (6)
• 20–39	61 (52)	41 (70)	14 (52)	6 (19)	17 (35)
• 40–59	43 (36)	12 (20)	11 (40)	20 (62)	14 (28)
• > 60	8 (7)	2 (3)	1 (4)	5 (16)	15 (31)
Male, n (%)	47 (40)	19 (32)	7 (26)	21 (66)	25 (51)	<0.001

Seroconversion of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in COVID 19 patients

Among the 118 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients, 99 had blood samples collected at least once more than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The overall seroconversion of antibodies after the 7th day of symptoms is summarized in Table 2. The overall sensitivity of IgA was 87.9% (95% CI: 79.8–93.6) with a negative predictive value of 93.1% (95% CI: 88.3–96.4). The overall sensitivity of IgG was 84.8% (95% CI: 76.2–91.3) with a negative predictive value of 91.0% (95% CI: 87.9–96.1). The overall specificities of IgA and IgG were 94.7% and 97.1%, respectively.

Table 2

The overall sensitivity of samples collected after the 7th day of symptoms.

ELISA_IgA ≥ 1.1	n/N	%	95%CI
Sensitivity	87/99	87.9	79.8	93.6
Specificitya	162/171	94.7	90.2	97.6
Positive predictive value	87/96	90.6	82.9	95.6
Negative predictive value	162/174	93.1	88.3	96.4
ROC area (Sens. + Spec.)/2	-	0.91	0.88	0.95
ELISA_IgG ≥ 0.8		%	95%CI
Sensitivity	84/99	84.8	76.2	91.3
Specificityb	166/171	97.1	93.3	99
Positive predictive value	84/89	94.4	87.4	98.2
Negative predictive value	166/181	91.7	87.9	96.1
ROC area (Sens. + Spec.)/2	-	0.91	0.87	0.95

a IgA Specificity in Healthy control = 100/102 = 98.03%, Specificity in Patients under investigation for COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative = 44/49 = 89.8%, Specificity in cross-reactivity panel group = 18/20 = 90%.

b IgG Specificity in Healthy control = 101/102 = 99.01%, Specificity in Patients under investigation for COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative = 47/49 = 95.9%, Specificity in cross-reactivity panel group = 18/20 = 90%.

The specificity, however, varied between the control subgroups. The raw data for all controls are shown in S1 Table. There were two false-positive IgA and one false-positive IgG results out of 102 healthy controls. We were able to obtain and re-analyze seven samples, with an OD ratio ≥ 0.8 after two months. The OD ratio was quite similar to the initial results, confirming the healthy control group's limited background. Of the 49 PUI, there were five positive IgA and two positive IgG results for COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2. Two of these patient’s tests were repeated after 2–4 weeks, and the OD ratios returned to normal. Of 20 serum specimens collected from patients with other infections, there were two samples with both IgA and IgG cross-reactivity to CMV- and EBV-positive samples.

Seroconversion of antibodies, stratified by day of illness and disease severity

The seroconversion of the antibodies, stratified by the day of illness, is shown in Table 3. The sensitivity for serological testing within seven days of the onset of symptoms was only 29.7–30.6% for IgA and 10.2–16.2% for IgG. The IgA positivity rate increased to 60% during the 2nd week and 100% during the 3rd-4th weeks, and then declined to 81.9% in the 2nd month. The IgG positivity rate increased to 90% during the 3rd-4th weeks of diseases.

Table 3

The seroconversion of antibody stratifies by day of illness and severity (N = 213 tests).

	PCR positive	ELISA IgA ≥ 1.1
		Total	Mild	Moderate	Severe
Day 0–3	37	11/37 (29.7%)	6/23 (26%)	3/9 (33.3%)	2/5 (40%)
Day 4–7	49	15/49 (30.6%)	3/25 (12%)	7/10 (70%)	5/14 (35.7%)
Day 8–14	45	27/45 (60%)	8/20 (40%)	9/13 (69.2%)	10/12 (83.3%)
Day 15–28	21	21/21 (100%)	4/4 (100%)	5/5 (100%)	12/12 (100%)
Day > 28	61	50/61 (81.9%)	22/31 (71%)	14/15 (93.3%)	14/15 (93.3%)
	213	124/213 (58.2%)	43/103 (41.7%)	38/52 (73.1%)	43/58 (74.1%)
	PCR positive	ELISA IgG ≥ 0.8
		Total	Mild	Moderate	Severe
Day 0–3	37	6 (16.2%)	1/23 (4.3%)	3/9 (33.3%)	2/5 (40%)
Day 4–7	49	5 (10.2%)	0/25 (0%)	1/10 (10%)	4/14 (28.6%)
Day 8–14	45	14 (31.1%)	4/20 (20%)	4/13 (30.8%)	6/12 (50%)
Day 15–28	21	19 (90.5%)	2/4 (50%)	5/5 (100%)	12/12 (100%)
Day > 28	61	55 (90.2%)	26/31 (83.9%)	14/15 (93.3%)	15/15 (100%)
	213	99 (46.5%)	33/103 (32%)	27/52 (51.9%)	39/58 (67.2%)

To investigate the association of antibody levels to the severity of the disease, the antibody levels at the first time point were expressed using the specified cutoff value, stratified by disease severity. The severe group had a significantly higher level of S1-specific IgA and IgG antibodies compared to the mild group (Fig 1). It should be noted that the two patients in the severe group who did had no detectable S1-specific IgA were tested only once, at 31 and 40 days after the onset of symptoms, and therefore it was likely that the IgA levels had already declined in these patients.

Fig 1

Antibody levels based on disease severity: A) ELISA IgA OD ratio, B) ELISA IgG OD ratio.

To see the dynamics of each group, we plotted the average antibody level from mild, moderate, and severe groups at five intervals (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Average antibody levels among COVID-19 patients with different disease severity by date of illness: A) IgA OD ratio and B) IgG OD ratio.

There were 103, 52, and 58 samples from the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively (Table 3). A clear pattern emerged, showing that the severe and moderate groups had significantly higher IgA and IgG levels 15 days post-symptoms compared to the mild group. Of the group with mild symptoms, 20% (7/35) of the samples had no detectable IgG antibodies more than 2 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Only 1 out of 15 patients from the moderate group had no detectable IgG antibodies, while all 15 patients with severe symptoms had high IgG levels after the second week (Table 3).

Since age and sex were associated with the disease outcome, we analyzed the correlation between antibody level and age in the severe group, as shown in Fig 3A and 3B; however, no significant correlation was found.

Fig 3

The correlation between antibody level and age in the severe group: A) Age VS ELISA IgA OD ratio, B) Age VS ELISA IgG OD ratio.

We also compared the antibody levels between males and females within the severe group. Interestingly, the levels of both S1-specific IgA and IgG to were higher in males than in females, with IgG being statistically significant (Fig 4A and 4B). The median age of males (51, IQR: 43–59) was also higher than that of females (41, IQR: 24–46) in the severe group.

Fig 4

The relationship between antibody levels and sex in the severe group: A) Sex VS ELISA IgA OD ratio, B) Sex VS ELISA IgG OD ratio.

Discussion

The results of the present study have demonstrated that during the first week of COVID-19 infection, the sensitivity of the antibody response to acute viral infection is low. The antibody response seen in the present study started with IgA, followed by IgG. Because it is difficult to compare results using different serological analyses, we have only used data from studies that tested with EUROIMMUN for comparison. The results from 15 studies using EUROIMMUN assays are summarized in S2 Table. Previous studies have mostly reported that the sensitivity of IgA within the first week was less than 60% [12, 13]. In the present study, 30% of COVID-19 patients developed positive IgA antibodies very early, within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. Therefore, the presence of positive IgA antibodies might help identify some COVID-19 patients in the early stage, however, negative results cannot be used to exclude infection. The seroconversion of IgA was 100% in 21 patients at 15–28 days after the onset of symptoms. In a study from France, a 100% sensitivity of IgA seroconversion was reported in 82 cases after the second week of symptoms [13], and in 91 patients after the third week [14]. Interestingly, in the present study we noticed a decline in IgA after one month, with the sensitivity decreasing to 80%.

In regard to IgG, it should be noted that for the present study, we used the borderline cutoff to define a positive result to increase the sensitivity of IgG. This cutoff did not change the specificity of the test. IgG antibodies specific to the SARS-CoV-2 S1 antigen developed later than IgA. The sensitivity of IgG was 90% after the second week of symptoms, which is comparable to other studies [13, 15–17].

In the present study, 20% of the patients with mild symptoms did not develop any IgG antibodies specific to COVID-19, even after 2 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Other studies have found up to 20–30% of cases to be negative for IgG [18, 19]. When we analyzed the correlation of antibody levels with clinical severity, it was clear that patients with more severe clinical manifestations had higher antibody levels, for both IgA and IgG, than patients in the mild group. This observation has been consistently reported in other study populations as well [10, 19, 20]. The explanation behind these findings is not yet clear, however, one current hypothesis is that the elevated inflammatory response in the severe patients might produce a more robust immune response, including antibody production from B-lymphocytes. It also raises concerns about the role of antibody-mediated severity, although there is no evidence to support it.

Moreover, several studies have reported that there were higher rates of severity and mortality in male patients [21]. In the present study, more females were infected with COVID-19 than males (60% female vs. 40% male); however, there were significantly more males (66%) in the severe group. Interestingly, we found a significantly higher level of IgG in males than in females in the severe group, similar to recent results found by Klein et al. [19]. The median age of males was higher than that of females in the severe group. It is possible that higher levels of antibodies might be associated with greater illness severity in male patients. However, there is a speculation that biological sex might affect immunity through various mechanisms [21]. Although women seem to have greater antibody responses and are more susceptible to autoimmune diseases than men, other factors, including innate immunity, regulatory T cells, expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), or other mechanisms related to sex hormones might explain the greater severity and higher antibody levels observed in male patients. Further studies are needed to elucidate the impact of sex on disease severity, which might lead to a better understanding of this challenging disease.

Although the assessment of specificity was not the main objective of this study, our results confirmed those from previous studies, that the specificity of EUROIMMUN anti-SAR-CoV-2 IgA is lower than that of IgG. As summarized in S2 Table, the specificity of EUROIMMUN anti-SAR-CoV-2 IgA ranged from 68.3–94.6%, while anti-SAR-CoV-2 IgG ranged from 85–100%. A higher background was observed in the control group with respiratory symptoms. As previously stated, of the 49 PUI, there were 5 positive IgA and 2 positive IgG results that had corresponding negative RT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2. Two of these patients were repeated after 2–4 weeks, and the OD ratio returned to normal. It should be noted that the positive results in these patients could be the result of either a false positive or a true positive case with negative RT-PCR results. However, there was no evidence to support COVID-19 infection in these patients. We also observed two samples with both IgA and IgG cross-reactivity with CMV- and EBV-positive samples. Since we did not have serological results for other coronaviruses in these two samples, we did not know definitively if they were directly cross-reactive with CMV and EBV, or the result of cross-reactivity with another coronavirus. However, based on results from other studies summarized in S2 Table, there were reports of false positives with various infections, including EBV and CMV seropositives [12, 17].

In summary, the present study extensively reported the serological responses of COVID-19 patients in Thailand up to 60 days after the onset of symptoms. Although most of the samples were tested at two time points, blood samples were collected from patients at different stages and at various intervals. Therefore, we did not determine a median time for positive results, which might have been subject to bias.

Raw data of control group.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Summary serological results from 15 studies based on Euroimmun test.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-23838

Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Coronavirus Diseases 2019 Patients with Different Severity

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hirankarn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5t of October. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walter R. Taylor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Hirankarn,

we have received comments from one reviewer.

The decision is minor revision but could you try to find a native English speaker to improve the language, please?

yours sincerely,

Walter Taylor.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please see the attachment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: review.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Sep 2020

This is a well written paper that I will be of use to clinicians and laboratory scientist dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is largely descriptive but is comprehensive and the information regarding days of illness, age groups and diagnostic accuracy of the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 ELISA is useful.

There are some problems with the English and the manuscript would benefit from an edit by a native English language speaker.

Answer: We have now edited our manuscript based on professional English editing service. We also change the title to “Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Differing Severities of Coronavirus Disease 2019” to make it clearer.

I have some questions relating to this manuscript which I would appreciate if the authors can respond.

1. Can the authors please explain why they did not test for IgM?

Answer: Euroimmun only provides serology test for IgA and IgG, not IgM. Based on our own observation in the past that IgA seems to have pronounce responses in respiratory infection compared to IgM, we are interested in this Euroimmun system. IgA is the major isotype that important in mucosal immunity and IgA was reported to appear as early as IgM in other previously reports, we think that IgA can be used interchangeably with IgM and might even be a better marker.

2. Why did the authors choose to use their own severity score when there are already multiple severity scores available. Can the authors please comment on the limitations relating to the use of their own severity score.

A comparison of COVID-19 severity scores is contained in the following citation. Guohui Fan, Chao Tu, Fei Zhou, Zhibo Liu, Yeming Wang, Bin Song, Xiaoying Gu, Yimin Wang, Yuan Wei, Hui Li, Xudong Wu, Jiuyang Xu, Shengjin Tu, Yi Zhang, Wenjuan Wu, Bin Cao European Respiratory Journal 2020; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02113-2020

Answer: We are thankful to the reviewer for pointing this out. According to the severity scores that mention in Fan G et al study, CURB-65 scores based on confusion status, urea level, respiratory rate, blood pressure and age for triage patients (outpatient care, inpatient vs observation admission and inpatient admission with consideration for ICU). Pneumonia severity index (PSI) score based on age, characteristic, co-morbidity, examination and investigation lab (arterial pH, Urea, Na, Glucose, Hct, PaO2 or SaO2 and pleural effusion). SMART-COP score for pneumonia severity based on age, CXR result, albumin, vital sign, conscious status, blood gas. We did not use these criteria because the approach and test that we used are different. We admit all confirmed COVID-19 cases in the hospital as in-patient but limit the investigations in some patients when their condition is good as the transmission prevention policy in our hospital. However, when we analyzed the patient in severe group who have complete data, most of them were in severe risk group or highest risk group in CURB-65, moderate or high risk in SMART-COP and moderate to high risk from PSI score.

For a practicality standpoint, we used the severity classification based on the COVID-19 guideline for management and treatment from the Department of Medical Service, Thai Ministry of Public Health. We classified the confirmed COVID-19 patients to (1) mild symptoms; upper respiratory infection, (2) moderate; pneumonia without hypoxia and (3) severe pneumonia with hypoxia SpO2<95% , of which antiviral treatment was given.

We added in the sentence line 115 under the “Patient population” that Classification of the confirmed case was as follows, according to the COVID-19 management guideline of the Thai Ministry of Public Health: 1) mild – asymptomatic or upper respiratory tract infection (URI), 2) moderate – pneumonia without hypoxia, and 3) severe – pneumonia with hypoxia, of which the antiviral treatment was given.

3. The authors note that they used both plasma and serum for this study. Is there any difference between plasma and serum in the ELISA?

Answer: These serology test kit from Euroimmun has been validated from the company and stated in the leaflet that both plasma and serum can be used interchangeably.

4. The false positives are interesting. In line 177 the authors state “From 20 serum specimens 
collected from patients with other infections revealed two samples with both IgA and IgG cross-reactivity with CMV and EBV positive samples”. Can the authors prove that this is cross-reactivity or is it true positivity due to across reaction with another coronavirus?

Answer: We did not have serology result of other coronavirus so we cannot answer this question exactly. However, based on results from other studies summarized in S2 Table, there were reports of false positive with EBV and CMV seropositive (Montesinos et al., Journal of Clinical Virology; Elslande et al., Clinical Microbiology and Infection). We have added the limitation and discussion about this point into the manuscript as well.

5. In line 175 the authors state “It should be noted that the positive results in these patients might be the result of either false positive or true positive cases with negative RT-PCR. However, we did not have any evidence to support the COVID-19 infection in these patients”. This is conjecture and should be moved to the discussion section.

Answer: We have moved this part to the discussion part as advice.

6. Given the issues relating to cross-reactivity or false positivity with SARS-CoV-2 serology – would it be possible to provide more information regarding the false positive results. The information provided is inadequate.

Answer: The specificity was not our main objective in this study. However, we have added a paragraph regarding the specificity and cross-reactivity in the discussion part.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 Sep 2020

Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Differing Severities of Coronavirus Disease 2019

PONE-D-20-23838R1

Dear Dr.Hirankam,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Walter R. Taylor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

1 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-23838R1

Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Differing Severities of Coronavirus Disease 2019

Dear Dr. Hirankarn:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Walter R. Taylor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE