High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Karaganda, Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 exposure in Central Asia appears underestimated and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data are urgently needed to inform ongoing vaccination efforts and other strategies to mitigate the regional pandemic. Here, in a pilot serologic study we assessed the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody-mediated immunity in a multi-ethnic cohort of public university employees in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. Asymptomatic subjects (n = 100) were recruited prior to their first COVID-19 vaccination. Questionnaires were administered to capture a range of demographic and clinical characteristics. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing. Serological assays were performed to detect spike (S)-reactive IgG and IgA and to assess virus neutralization. Pre-pandemic samples were used to validate the assay positivity thresholds. S-IgG and -IgA seropositivity rates among SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative participants (n = 100) were 42% (95% CI [32.2-52.3]) and 59% (95% CI [48.8-69.0]), respectively, and 64% (95% CI [53.4-73.1]) of the cohort tested positive for at least one of the antibodies. S-IgG titres correlated with virus neutralization activity, detectable in 49% of the tested subset with prior COVID-19 history. Serologically confirmed history of COVID-19 was associated with Kazakh ethnicity, but not with other ethnic minorities present in the cohort, and self-reported history of respiratory illness since March 2020. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was ~15-fold higher compared to the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence, consistent with recent studies of excess infection and death in Kazakhstan. Continuous serological surveillance provides important insights into COVID-19 transmission dynamics and may be used to better inform the regional public health response.

Introduction

COVID-19 remains a global public health concern and is especially pernicious in regions with limited public health infrastructure that suffer from inadequate epidemiologic surveillance and delayed implementation of pandemic countermeasures. In the Central Asian states, such as Kazakhstan, substantial underestimations (of ~14-fold) of COVID-19 incidence and associated mortality [1-3] have led to public distrust and slow uptake of public health measures, including vaccination [4]. To date, the extent of community exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Kazakhstan is incompletely understood. Thus, as of 7 August 2021 (when analysis presented in this work was completed [5]), the officially reported number of all-time COVID-19 cases in Kazakhstan was 689,402 (626,402 of which were PCR-confirmed, while the rest were diagnosed based on clinical disease manifestations). These figures represented a cumulative prevalence of ~3.7% [6]- a prevalence that appears low given the substantial excess of infections and mortality estimated for Kazakhstan consistent with COVID-19 [2, 3].

Disparities between reported cases and true infections occur due to a plethora of factors, including unreported asymptomatic and mild infections, limited access to timely clinical and laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, and false-negative laboratory test results [7]. Case underestimation varies broadly by country and is most pronounced in lower income regions. Similar to its neighbouring Central Asian and Eastern European states, Kazakhstan’s healthcare and vital registration systems have struggled to keep a consistent tally of COVID-19 incidence and mortality. This was especially evident at the onset of the pandemic in Spring-Summer of 2020 when cases were counted solely if COVID-19 was identified as the main cause of hospitalization and/or death, resulting in a significant undercounting of undiagnosed pneumonia cases, which most likely were COVID-19-associated [1, 3, 8].

One way to estimate the proportion of the population with previous exposure to COVID-19 is by using serological surveillance [7], which has been under-utilized in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states. Here, we wished to gain insight into the true SARS-CoV-2 exposure rates in the Karaganda district of Kazakhstan, a multi-ethnic region, inhabited predominantly by ethnic Kazakhs (~60%), and other ethnic groups with diverse Slavic and Eastern European and Central Asian backgrounds. Therefore, we assessed full-length SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S)-specific IgG and IgA titres in a public university-based cohort, representing a diverse array of people with different risks of exposure to COVID-19.

Materials and methods

Study setting and participant recruitment

This study was conducted in conjunction with screening for a clinical trial assessing immunogenicity of the Sputnik-V vaccine (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04871841) based in Karaganda, the capital of Karaganda region situated in Central Kazakhstan [9]. This cohort was chosen for the serologic studies owing to funding availability and perceived feasibility in the context of the readily available resources and active participant recruitment within the infrastructure of the larger clinical trial.

Since February 2020 (and to the date when analysis presented in this work was completed), the Karaganda region (population ~1.3M) had over 63,000 (~5% of regional population) reported COVID-19 infections, placing it behind several other locales including the capital, Nur-Sultan (population ~ 1.0M), which has had a reported all-time COVID-19 prevalence of >11% [10]. Participant screening occurred in April-May 2021 at a COVID-19 vaccination clinic for university employees at the Karaganda Medical University. The study participants comprised of medical university administrative staff and instructors (61%), clinical laboratory staff (9%), and healthcare practitioners from affiliated teaching hospitals (30%). Consenting, asymptomatic adults, who had not previously received a COVID-19 vaccine, were invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of respiratory symptoms or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis within two weeks prior to the study. Short questionnaires addressing the participants’ demographic background and recent history of COVID-19 exposure were administered. To validate the IgG and IgA assay positivity thresholds, we performed ELISA on pre-pandemic samples, consisting of archived plasma samples (n = 10, 3 men and 7 women, median age (IQR) = 48(34.3–55.5) collected in 2016 as part of clinical studies of colorectal cancer and pertaining to the cancer-free control group in the original study [11].

Sample collection and processing

Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected following the national guidelines into DNA/RNA shield media (Zymo Research, Irvine, US). Blood (5 ml) was collected by venipuncture into EDTA tubes (Improvacuter, Gel & EDTA.K2, Improve Medical Instruments, Guangzhou, China) both in the pandemic and pre-pandemic studies. Blood plasma was isolated by centrifugation at 2,000 × g for 10 minutes. All samples were stored at -80°C prior to analyses.

PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2

Total RNA was isolated from nasopharyngeal swabs by magnetic bead-based nucleic acid extraction (RealBest Sorbitus, Vector-Best, Novosibirsk, Russia) and used for SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR testing by the Real-Best RNA SARS-CoV-2 kit (Vector-Best, Novosibirsk, Russia) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp and N loci, following the manufacturer’s protocol.

IgG and IgA assays

SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG and IgA ELISAs were performed using commercially available assays (Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG, Lübeck, Germany) on the Evolis 100 ELISA reader (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturers’ protocols. Optical density (OD) ratios were calculated as ratio of the OD reading for each sample to the reading of the kit calibrator at 450 nm. In the initial analysis, we used the Euroimmun-recommended OD ratio cutoff values for both IgG and IgA, which are “<0.8” for Ig-negative samples, “0.8–1.1” for Ig-borderline samples, and “> = 1.1” for Ig-positive samples. We noted that using the manufacturer’s cutoff values: of all IgG "borderline" participants (n = 9), 7 (77.8%) were IgA+ (IgA OD ratio> = 1.1), 1 (11.1%) was IgA borderline and 1 (11.1%) was IgA negative, while of all IgA "borderline" participants (n = 6), 2 (30.0%) were IgG+ (IgG OD ratio> = 1.1), 1 (20.0%) was IgG borderline, and 3 (50.0%) were IgG negative.

The mean OD450 ratios of the pre-pandemic samples were 0.3 for both IgG and IgA. Therefore, we empirically assumed that ~99.7% of IgG- and IgA- negative samples would fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean, i.e. within OD450 ratios of 0.45 and 0.51 for IgG and IgA, respectively. Thus, for both IgG and IgA assays, we used the manufacturer-recommended threshold (0.8), which is conservatively above our calculated empiric negative thresholds, and considered all samples with OD ratios <0.8 and > = 0.8 as “negative” and "positive", respectively. Using this in-house threshold, we defined the "No Prior COVID" subjects as negative for both IgG and IgA (IgG-, IgA-) and the "Prior COVID" subjects as positive for either or both IgG and/or IgA (IgG+/-, IgA+/-).

Surrogate SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays

A virus neutralizing assay was performed using a commercially available kit (cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit, #L00847-C, GenScript Biotech Co., Nanjing City, China) in a subset of 55 participants. The assay is designed to assess inhibition of the interaction between the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) fragment and the human ACE2 receptor protein (hACE2). Briefly, plasma samples and manufacturer-provided controls were pre-incubated with the horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated RBD at 37°C for 30 min, and then added to the hACE-2 pre-coated plate for incubation at 37°C for 15 min. After washing and incubation with the tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate, the absorbance of the final solution was measured at 450 nm using the Evolis 100 ELISA reader (Bio-Rad). Quality control was done following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Neutralization % was calculated by subtracting the negative control-normalized absorbance of the samples from 1 and multiplying it by 100%; a manufacturer-recommended cut-off of 30% was used for detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity.

Statistical analysis

Demographic differences were assessed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney U test for age and BMI, Pearson χ2 for sex, ethnicity and comorbidities and Fisher’s exact test for self-reported history and workplace exposure. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the binomial "exact" method. Correlations among variables were explored using the Spearman rank test and lines of best fit were derived via linear regression.

Ethics statement

All study procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Board of Karaganda Medical University under Protocol #45 from 06.04.2020. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

All 100 participants tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR at screening. Of 100 participants, 42 (42.0%; 95% CI [32.2–52.3]) were S-IgG+. Due to insufficient sample volume, we were unable to include two samples (one IgG+ and one IgG-) in IgA testing, thus out of the 98 participants tested for IgA, 58 (59.2%; 95% CI [48.8–69.0]) were S-IgA+ (Fig 1A). None of the pre-pandemic samples were positive for S-IgG or -IgA (Fig 1A).

Fig 1

a) Distribution of optic density (OD) 450 ratios for blood SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S)-reactive IgG and IgA among the study participants recruited in Spring 2021 (n = 100) compared to the pre-pandemic samples obtained in 2016 (n = 10). b) Correlation plot of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-reactive IgG and IgA levels among the 2021 study participants (n = 98). In a) and b) the red dotted lines represent the assay cut-off values at OD450 ratios = 0.8 for positive samples for both IgG and IgA. c) The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity of the 2021 study participant plasma samples measured using the surrogate virus neutralization test. N = 25 in the No Prior COVID group, and N = 30 in the Prior COVID group. The red dotted line represents the assay cut-off value at 30% for positive samples. d) Correlations between SARS-CoV-2 neutralization versus S-reactive IgG and IgA among the study participants with a serology-confirmed history of COVID-19 (the Prior COVID-19 group, N = 30).

When stratified by the presence/absence of both IgG and IgA, there were 37 (37.8%) IgG+/IgA+, 4 (4.1%) IgG+/IgA-, 21 (21.4%) IgG-/IgA+ and 36 (36.7%) IgG-/IgA- subjects (Fig 1B). Cumulatively there were 63.6% (63/99; 95% CI [53.4–73.1]) subjects positive for at least one of the antibodies (including one participant with a missing S-IgA test results); these subjects were defined as the "Prior COVID" group (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort.

	All (100)	No prior COVID (36*)	Prior COVID (63*)	P value
Age, years	43.5 [35.3–54.0]	43.0 [37.0–55.5]	44.0 [34.3–55.5]	0.657
Sex (men)	31.0%	27.8%	33.3%	0.655
Kazakh ethnicity~	55.0%	38.9%	63.5%	0.022
BMI#, kg/m2	25.2 [22.8–28.1]	24.8 [22.3–28.3]	25.4 [23.4–28.2]	0.440
Any comorbidities^	45.0%	41.7%	46.0%	0.834
Self-reported history of respiratory illness since March 2020	37.0%	9.1%	60.0%	<0.001
Potential workplace exposure to COVID-19
Health care worker in contact with patients	30.0%	36.1%	27.0%	0.211
Clinical laboratory staff	9.0%	13.9%	6.3%

Continuous and categorical variables are provided as median/interquartile ranges and percentages, respectively. P-values were derived using the two-sided Mann-Whitney U, Pearson χ2, or Fisher’s exact tests to compare differences between groups as described in the Methods.

* History of exposure to COVID-19 was determined based on the combined S-IgG and S-IgA results (see the Methods and Results). Due to insufficient sample volume, two participants (2/100) were excluded from S-IgA testing; one of these participants was S-IgG+ and therefore included in the “Prior COVID-19” category despite their unknown S-IgA status.

~ Other, non-Kazakh, ethnic groups include people with Slavic and other Eastern European and Central Asian backgrounds.

#BMI data available for 97/100 participants.

^ Participants self-reported gastrointestinal conditions, hypertension, chronic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of malignancy, diabetes, liver disease, thyroid dysfunction, kidney disease, neurologic conditions, autoimmune conditions; the distribution of individual comorbidities did not differ between the “no prior COVID-19” and “prior COVID-19” groups.

To further characterize the serologic features of the cohort, we compared the levels of SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies and the capacity of participant plasma to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 RBD-hACE2 interaction in vitro. We found that S-IgG and S-IgA levels correlated strongly across the cohort (r = 0.599, p<0.001, Fig 1B). The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity was significantly higher in the Prior COVID group compared to the No Prior COVID group (p<0.001, Fig 1C). In the Prior COVID group, 17 out of 35 tested participants (48.6%) exhibited neutralization exceeding the assay positivity cut-off (Fig 1C). SARS-CoV-2 neutralization also significantly correlated with circulating S-reactive IgG in the Prior COVID group (Fig 1D).

Lastly, we compared the clinical and demographic features of the cohort stratified by the serology-confirmed COVID-19 exposure. The Prior COVID group consisted of 25% more people self-identifying as ethnic Kazakhs (p = 0.022), and more frequently self-reported having had a respiratory illness since March 2020 (p<0.001), compared to the No prior COVID group (Table 1). Only in a minority of cases (24%, 8/33) self-reported respiratory illness was confirmed as COVID-19 by PCR and/or serology at the time of sickness; most of the self-reported respiratory illness occurred in March-Aug 2020, and in two cases in February-March 2021. There were no other significant clinical or demographic differences between the Prior COVID and No prior COVID groups (Table 1).

Discussion

Here we present anti-S IgG and IgA-based seroprevalence findings from a cohort of public university employees in Karaganda, Kazakhstan, who were invited to participate in the study prior to receiving their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. The cohort seropositivity for anti-S IgG and IgA was 41% and 59%, respectively, while 64% of the subjects tested positive for at least one of the antibodies, thus approaching the 67% seroprevalence threshold thought to be required for establishing herd immunity [12, 13]. Consistent with studies of excess infection and death in Kazakhstan [2, 3], the serologically assessed SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was 14-15-fold higher than the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence.

The substantial discrepancy between serology-derived and officially reported COVID-19 exposure estimates is not uncommon across the globe [7]. However, what is most striking about our findings is the unusually high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence exceeding the estimates for many other countries [7], albeit on par with the recent estimates from the neighbouring St. Petersburg, Russia, where antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike were detectable in ~45% of randomly sampled adults [14]. Similarly high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates have also been observed in the general populations of Brazil (>76% [15]), Ecuador (~45% [16]), India and Pakistan (>52% [17, 18]), and in communities at risk, such as healthcare workers and nursing home residents, across the globe [7]. Consistently, a recent analysis of serology data from a private laboratory network in Kazakhstan obtained for a period of 12 months (July 2020- July 2021) indicated a test positivity rate of 63% for SARS-CoV-2 IgG [19]. At the same time, a recently published household survey conducted across three cities in Kazakhstan between October 2020 and January 2021 found SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM-based seroprevalence rates to range from 39–61% [20].

In our cohort, serologically confirmed exposure to COVID-19 was associated with self-documented history of respiratory illness, most of which was dated by the participants to the peak of the first COVID-19 wave in the Spring-Summer of 2020 [1], period during which the country’s healthcare system was overwhelmed and laboratory testing was limited [3]. This timing of self-reported illness suggests that anti-S immunoglobulins remain detectable up to a year after symptomatic COVID-19, consistent with the established long-term persistence of SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies [21, 22].

COVID-19 exposure in this cohort was significantly associated with Kazakh ethnicity, consistent with our earlier finding that Kazakh people are more likely have a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis but are less likely to develop severe disease compared to other ethnic groups in Kazakhstan [1]. Somewhat unexpectedly, we did not see any association between the serologically confirmed exposure to COVID-19 and the participants’ professional occupation or any demographic factors. This may be because differences between sub-populations with different COVID-19 exposure risk are overwhelmed by the high seroprevalence in the general population. Alternatively, the risk of infection for healthcare workers may not be elevated relative to the general population because of the adequacy of infection control practices that are in place in healthcare facilities.

Given the logistical difficulties with procuring biomedical reagents and limited technological capacity in the setting of Kazakhstan, our choice of the serologic assay in this study was dictated by both assay quality and logistic feasibility. Therefore, we used a commercially available, FDA-approved assay, validated by several research groups, and deployable in a basic clinical lab setting [23-26]. Furthermore, we chose to use both IgG and IgA based on the evidence of distinct but overlapping temporal patterns seen for these antibodies in COVID-19 patients [21, 27, 28]. Thus, both IgG and IgA appear as early as 2 weeks post-symptom onset (PSO), with IgA increasing up to third week PSO and then dropping, while IgG increases until fourth week PSO, remaining detectable up to 8 months PSO [21]. Finally, we chose not to use IgM, since this antibody is more suitable for detecting acute infection, while in convalescent subjects IgA temporally overlaps IgM, resulting in higher positivity rates [27].

We validated our findings in the current cohort by testing pre-pandemic samples and performing virus neutralization assays. Half of the Prior COVID participants exhibited virus neutralization correlating with S-reactive IgG titres. This finding is consistent with the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 neutralization declines rapidly after COVID-19 disease resolution and >40% of convalescent subjects show little neutralization activity [21, 23, 29].

Recent studies indicate that people with prior history of COVID-19 have a stronger response to vaccination compared to COVID-19-naive subjects after one vaccine dose [30-32]. Mass COVID-19 vaccination was launched in Kazakhstan in February 2021, and so far, ~40% of Kazakhstan’s population has received at least one vaccine dose [10]. Considering limited vaccine supply and low vaccination acceptance, our seroprevalence findings therefore could be extended to inform the ongoing vaccination efforts about the existing population-wide anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in Kazakhstan. For example, the second dose of COVID-19 immunisation could be reserved for people without prior natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 but delayed for subjects with prior COVID-19 exposure.

Given the small sample constrained to employees of one, albeit large (employing ~3000 staff) organization, our findings should be seen as preliminary “pilot” data on SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in Kazakhstan. Importantly, our analysis was focused on S-reactive immunoglobulins and with increasing vaccination coverage other SARS-CoV-2 antigens should be incorporated into the future seroprevalence surveys across various demographic groups in the region.

Conclusions

Continuous epidemiologic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 exposure is critical for understanding the COVID-19 transmission dynamics and for informing ongoing vaccination efforts and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies. Seroprevalence studies could help fill in the current gaps in COVID-19 case reporting in Kazakhstan. However, large scale seroprevalence studies in resource-limited settings may not be feasible due to limited clinical and laboratory infrastructure- a barrier that could be overcome by using alternative approaches such as analysing blood bank samples, assessing data collected by the private laboratory sector (which has recently dramatically expanded in Kazakhstan [19]), and implementing PCR-based wastewater surveillance. Our seroprevalence study for the first time documents an extremely high rate of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. Although pilot in nature, these findings are consistent with high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in other regions of Kazakhstan [19, 20, 33], corroborating an overall underascertainment of COVID-19 rates across the country. While narrowing the gaps in country-wide infection surveillance necessitates addressing systemic issues related to governance and healthcare delivery and improving vital registration systems, we hope that our findings can inform the regional pandemic response to facilitate a more effective and equitable distribution of resources, such as vaccines.

Raw study dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Jun 2022

- Briefly explain the purpose of the pre-pandemic group in the Methods as well;

- Explain which tests were used for which variables (instead of 'as appropriate');

- Please kindly provide the reference number of the ethical clearance for the larger study within which this serologic survey was performed;

- Results are given for 99 subjects in the Table and for 98 subjects in the Results, please either correct or explain this discrepancy;

- It is not clear whether 55 (methods) or 35 (results) subjects were selected for the neutralization assay, and by which criterion;

- Please only use percentages in the table, as the numbers can be inferred thanks to the total in the top row (you can write "Results are expressed as percentages unless specified otherwise" in the title of the table; consistently, specify that for continuous variables you are providing the mean (and SD?); finally, the tests used should be explained as a note, not within the title of the table.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2022 11:59PM. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The study was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (AP09259123) and, in part, by the Nazarbayev University grant #280720FD1902 to GH. SY was supported, in part, by a M.G. DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The study was funded by the The study was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (AP09259123, https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/edu?lang=en) and, in part, by the Nazarbayev University (https://nu.edu.kz/) grant #280720FD1902 to GH. SY was supported, in part, by a M.G. DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship.  (AP09259123) and, in part, by the Nazarbayev University grant #280720FD1902 to GH. SY was supported, in part, by a M.G. DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and the lead authors (IK, SY, DB) had final responsibility for the decision to submit manuscript for publication."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: The paper is well written and is relevant to current situation. Coming from one of the “stans” myself I realize the level of underreporting for such data. This makes it easier for me to understand the situation and importance of this paper. However, I have several concerns:

1. The history and situation with under reporting in the region is not fully explained.

2. The cohort chosen cannot be generalized to the whole population - this is mentioned in the paper, but I think it would be good to provide more details about reasons for choosing this particular cohort (availability, connections, etc)

3. Last, but not least, I felt that there is something missing in conclusion. Specifically, lack of recommendation for further studies and possible actions. It was established that the prevalence of COVID-19 in the region is much higher than officially reported. What can be recommended to the government, how to improve reporting in general, how this underreporting is connected to uptake of vaccinations?

If possible this information can be added to the paper to make it more convenient complete.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors!

On acquainting with the presented paper, I found no significant remarks in the Methodology, Results presentation, and the Discussion section.

The topic's relevance cannot be considered overestimated, although the tension of the Covid-19 pandemic has significantly decreased. Given the chance of the possible upcoming pandemics, the global scientific community strives to acquire a deeper understanding of all the details of the present pandemic process. In this relation, information from the countries with a comparatively low level of healthcare, such as Kazakhstan (LMICs out of the EU), appears to be particularly valuable.

A study on Sputnik V preceded this work, and linked preprints from the MedRxiv Yale were placed into the References.

In the methodology narration, the solution to use the manufacturers' cutoff values as being more suitable was relevant, thus indicating the quality of the work done.

The dubious moment was the number of pre-pandemic samples (N 10), though it seems that this circumstance did not interfere with the validity of the results obtained.

The only I would suggest is to change your title slightly by inserting the brackets to lessen the number of commas:

"High seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Karaganda (Kazakhstan) before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination"

I found this conclusion the most important: "...serologically assessed SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was 14-15-fold higher than the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence; the unusually high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence exceeding the estimates for many other countries."

These data allow understanding of the shortcomings and pitfalls in the preventive strategies against the pandemic held in Kazakhstan. For instance, the paper showed the extremely low effectiveness of the screening by currently applied means. Albeit all the screened samples were negative, 59.2% of them turned out to be positive for anti-S IgA.

I highly appreciated the integrity in presenting your data.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

28 Jun 2022

Reviewer #1: The paper is well written and is relevant to current situation. Coming from one of the “stans” myself I realize the level of underreporting for such data. This makes it easier for me to understand the situation and importance of this paper. However, I have several concerns:

Authors' response: We are very appreciative of the reviewer’s positive view of our work and thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and questions. Please kindly find our point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s remarks below.

1. The history and situation with under reporting in the region is not fully explained.

Authors' response: Thank you for raising this point. To address this comment, we have now added additional information to the Introduction to describe the situation with regard to COVID-19 under-reporting in Kazakhstan (p3, lines 15-23 and p4, lines 1-3).

2. The cohort chosen cannot be generalized to the whole population - this is mentioned in the paper, but I think it would be good to provide more details about reasons for choosing this particular cohort (availability, connections, etc)

Authors' response: Thank you for this very valid comment. This cohort was chosen for the serologic studies owing to funding availability and perceived feasibility in the context of the readily available resources and active participant recruitment within the infrastructure of the larger clinical trial. We have now added this information to the Materials and Methods (p4, lines 15-18).

3. Last, but not least, I felt that there is something missing in conclusion. Specifically, lack of recommendation for further studies and possible actions. It was established that the prevalence of COVID-19 in the region is much higher than officially reported. What can be recommended to the government, how to improve reporting in general, how this underreporting is connected to uptake of vaccinations? If possible this information can be added to the paper to make it more convenient complete.

Authors' response: Thank you for this suggestion! We have modififed the Discussion/Conclusions (p 12, lines 9-23) to include our recommendations with regard to improving case reporting and pandemic surveillance using serological screening and alternative approaches.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors! On acquainting with the presented paper, I found no significant remarks in the Methodology, Results presentation, and the Discussion section. The topic's relevance cannot be considered overestimated, although the tension of the Covid-19 pandemic has significantly decreased. Given the chance of the possible upcoming pandemics, the global scientific community strives to acquire a deeper understanding of all the details of the present pandemic process. In this relation, information from the countries with a comparatively low level of healthcare, such as Kazakhstan (LMICs out of the EU), appears to be particularly valuable. A study on Sputnik V preceded this work, and linked preprints from the MedRxiv Yale were placed into the References. In the methodology narration, the solution to use the manufacturers' cutoff values as being more suitable was relevant, thus indicating the quality of the work done. The dubious moment was the number of pre-pandemic samples (N 10), though it seems that this circumstance did not interfere with the validity of the results obtained.

The only I would suggest is to change your title slightly by inserting the brackets to lessen the number of commas: "High seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Karaganda (Kazakhstan) before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination" I found this conclusion the most important: "...serologically assessed SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was 14-15-fold higher than the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence; the unusually high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence exceeding the estimates for many other countries." These data allow understanding of the shortcomings and pitfalls in the preventive strategies against the pandemic held in Kazakhstan. For instance, the paper showed the extremely low effectiveness of the screening by currently applied means. Albeit all the screened samples were negative, 59.2% of them turned out to be positive for anti-S IgA. I highly appreciated the integrity in presenting your data.

Authors' response: We thank the reviewer for a very thoughtful and positive review of our work!

We agree with the reviewer that the original title of the manuscript appeared somewhat cumbersome, therefore we have adjusted it to: “High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Karaganda, Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination.” We would be happy to replace the comma with brackets and ultimately leave this decision to the reviewers' discretion.

Editorial Comments:

- Briefly explain the purpose of the pre-pandemic group in the Methods as well;

Authors' response: Done, please see p 5, lines 8-11.

- Explain which tests were used for which variables (instead of 'as appropriate');

Authors' response: Done, please see p 7, lines 13-18.

- Please kindly provide the reference number of the ethical clearance for the larger study within which this serologic survey was performed;

Authors' response: Done, we have added this information to the "Ethics Statement" (p 7, lines 19-22).

- Results are given for 99 subjects in the Table and for 98 subjects in the Results, please either correct or explain this discrepancy;

Authors' response: We apologize for the the lack of clarity here. Two out of 100 participants were excluded from S-IgA testing due to insufficient sample volume. However, because one of these two participants tested S-IgG+, they were still included in the "Prior COVID-19" category" despite the missing S-IgA result. We have now made edits to both the Table (see Table 1 footnote) and the Results (p.8, lines 8-16) to clarify this aspect.

- It is not clear whether 55 (methods) or 35 (results) subjects were selected for the neutralization assay, and by which criterion;

Authors' response: We are sorry for the confusion here. The neutralization assays were performed on 55 samples (of which 35 were classified as Prior COVID based on the S-IgG and S-IgA ELISA), as stated in the Methods. We have now clarified this in the Results (p8, lines 7-19).

- Please only use percentages in the table, as the numbers can be inferred thanks to the total in the top row (you can write "Results are expressed as percentages unless specified otherwise" in the title of the table; consistently, specify that for continuous variables you are providing the mean (and SD?); finally, the tests used should be explained as a note, not within the title of the table.

Authors' response: Thank you for these suggestions. We have edited the Table as requested by the Editor and among other edits specified in the Table footnote the following: "Continuous and categorical variables are provided as median/interquartile ranges and percentages, respectively."

Submitted filename: PONE_Kadyrova_Response to Reviewer Comments.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jul 2022

High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Karaganda, Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination.

PONE-D-22-14174R1

Dear Dr. Yegorov,

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,

Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: That's quite an improvement, and I am satisfied with all corrections made. I also agree with your present title.

**********

7. 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

18 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-14174R1

High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Karaganda, Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination.

Dear Dr. Yegorov:

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. Cecilia Acuti Martellucci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE