“…One previous study reported lower seropositivity rates one year after mild SARS-CoV-2-infection compared to our results; 58% were positive for S1-IgG and 85% for S-IgG measured with enzyme immunoassay and 58% had NAb (10). Direct comparison of the IgG concentrations and NAb titers between studies may not be possible since the age groups, viruses, as well as the serological tests, differed.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 94%
“…Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against SARS-CoV-2 target the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and sterically interfere with the binding of the viral spike protein and the host's angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (2,3). NAb levels are highly predictive of protection against infection and clinical disease (4) and detectable NAb have been reported to persist in most subjects at least six to twelve months after infection (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). SARS-CoV-2 virus is constantly mutating yet most changes have little or no impact on its virulence (13).…”
Understanding for how long antibodies persist following Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection provides important insight into estimating the duration of immunity induced by infection.
We assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection six and twelve months after diagnosis in 367 individuals of whom 13% had severe disease requiring hospitalization. We determined the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb). We also measured the NAb titers among a smaller subset of participants (n=78) against a wild-type virus (B.1) and three variants of concern (VOCs): Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2).
We found that NAb against the wild-type virus and S-IgG persisted in 89% and 97% of subjects for at least twelve months after infection, respectively. IgG and NAb levels were higher after severe infection. NAb titers were significantly lower against variants compared to the wild-type virus.
“…One previous study reported lower seropositivity rates one year after mild SARS-CoV-2-infection compared to our results; 58% were positive for S1-IgG and 85% for S-IgG measured with enzyme immunoassay and 58% had NAb (10). Direct comparison of the IgG concentrations and NAb titers between studies may not be possible since the age groups, viruses, as well as the serological tests, differed.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 94%
“…Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against SARS-CoV-2 target the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and sterically interfere with the binding of the viral spike protein and the host's angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (2,3). NAb levels are highly predictive of protection against infection and clinical disease (4) and detectable NAb have been reported to persist in most subjects at least six to twelve months after infection (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). SARS-CoV-2 virus is constantly mutating yet most changes have little or no impact on its virulence (13).…”
Understanding for how long antibodies persist following Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection provides important insight into estimating the duration of immunity induced by infection.
We assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection six and twelve months after diagnosis in 367 individuals of whom 13% had severe disease requiring hospitalization. We determined the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb). We also measured the NAb titers among a smaller subset of participants (n=78) against a wild-type virus (B.1) and three variants of concern (VOCs): Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2).
We found that NAb against the wild-type virus and S-IgG persisted in 89% and 97% of subjects for at least twelve months after infection, respectively. IgG and NAb levels were higher after severe infection. NAb titers were significantly lower against variants compared to the wild-type virus.
“…One of the most frequent questions at the moment is how long will the antigen-specific immune response be maintained, which is fundamental to guarantee long-lasting protection. During the last year, several reports have been accumulated demonstrating the persistence of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response, both humoral and cell-mediated, at different time points after recovery from natural infection [ 225 , 48 , 49 , 226 , 227 , 228 ]. Fig.…”
Section: Heterogeneous Adaptive Immune Response To Sars-cov-2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar findings were reported also for humoral specific immune response, since the gradual decrease of total SARS-CoV-2 Ig levels was associated with a high neutralising antibody titres and a robust specific memory B cell response in both moderate and severe COVID-19 recovered patients, irrespective of disease severity at hospitalisation (Sandberg JT 2021). Although the majority of previously infected individuals maintain high levels of circulating specific CD4 + T cells and antibodies, about 10-20% of recovered subjects showed a borderline specific adaptive immune response, suggesting they could be more susceptible to reinfection and thus may benefit from vaccination [ 48 , 49 , 227 , 225 ]. All these data indicate that the balance between functionality and dysregulation of the components of the specific immune response (B cells, T cells and antibodies) determine the effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 protection over time.…”
Section: Heterogeneous Adaptive Immune Response To Sars-cov-2mentioning
One and half year following the occurrence of COVID-19 pandemic, significant efforts from laboratories all over the world generated a huge amount of data describing the prototypical features of immunity in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this Review, we rationalize and organize the main observations, trying to define a “core” signature of immunity in COVID-19. We identified six hallmarks describing the main alterations occurring in the early infection phase and in the course of the disease, which predispose to severe illness. The six hallmarks are dysregulated type I IFN activity, hyperinflammation, lymphopenia, lymphocyte impairment, dysregulated myeloid response, and heterogeneous adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Dysregulation and exhaustion came out as the trait d’union, connecting abnormalities affecting both innate and adaptive immunity, humoral and cellular responses.
“… 6 In addition, according to a study of 52 patients who had mild COVID-19 infection, the SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected up to 1 year after the infection. 7 However, some reports have suggested that the immune response from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is more robust than natural infection. 8 COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody profile differs from the antibody profile induced by natural infection.…”
There are still no agreed guidelines on the vaccination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for previously infected patients. Here, we present two seropositive healthcare workers (HCWs) working in an isolation ward who recovered from COVID-19 in April 2020 and got vaccinated with BNT162b2 vaccine in March 2021. We have assessed the clinical course, vaccine-related adverse events, and antibody response after natural infection and after first and second dose vaccination. One of the two HCWs was asymptomatic during quarantine, but the other had mild upper respiratory infection symptoms 1 day before admission, and the symptoms continued for 9 days. There was no pneumonic infiltration in chest X-ray in both patients, and no COVID-19 specific treatment was administered. Total immunoglobulin antibody and neutralizing antibody to anti-spike protein receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were confirmed to be present in both HCWs in blood tests performed at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after discharge. Antibody response to mRNA vaccination showed marked elevation after the first vaccination, which was 30–40 times higher than that of antibody titer after natural infection in each patient (83.2 U/mL vs. > 2,500 U/mL in patient 1; 61.6 U/mL vs. > 2,500 U/mL in patient 2). Signal inhibition rate of neutralizing antibodies was also increased to over 97%. Due to this increased effect, there was little difference in antibody levels after the first and second dose. Both patients 1 and 2 suffered more from adverse vaccine reactions after the second vaccination than from COVID-19 symptoms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
