4.5 Article

Serological analysis of Ebola virus survivors and close contacts in Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional study

Journal

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007654

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AMED [JP17fm0208101j0001]
  2. RPERID from AMED [JP17fk018029h0001]
  3. MEXT [16H06429, 16K21723, 16H06434]
  4. JSPS
  5. Global Health Institute at UW-Madison
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H06434] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2013-2016 Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa was the largest and deadliest outbreak to date. Here we conducted a serological study to examine the antibody levels in survivors and the seroconversion in close contacts who took care of Ebola-infected individuals, but did not develop symptoms of Ebola virus disease. In March 2017, we collected blood samples from 481 individuals in Makeni, Sierra Leone: 214 survivors and 267 close contacts. Using commercial, quantitative ELISAs, we tested the plasma for IgG-specific antibodies against three major viral antigens: GP, the only viral glycoprotein expressed on the virus surface; NP, the most abundant viral protein; and VP40, a major structural protein of Zaire ebolavirus. We also determined neutralizing antibody titers. In the cohort of Ebola survivors, 97.7% of samples (209/214) had measurable antibody levels against GP, NP, and/or VP40. Of these positive samples, all but one had measurable neutralizing antibody titers against Ebola virus. For the close contacts, up to 12.7% (34/267) may have experienced a subclinical virus infection as indicated by detectable antibodies against GP. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether these close contacts truly experienced subclinical infections and whether these asymptomatic infections played a role in the dynamics of transmission.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available