4.8 Article

Seasonal human coronavirus antibodies are boosted upon SARS-CoV-2 infection but not associated with protection

期刊

CELL
卷 184, 期 7, 页码 1858-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [U19AI082630, HL137006, HL137915, R21AI129531, R21AI142638]
  2. Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program [PR182551]
  3. NIH Training in Virology T32 Program [T32AI007324]
  4. NIH Emerging Infectious Diseases T32 Program [T32AI055400]
  5. University of Pennsylvania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our research indicates that most individuals had antibodies against other seasonal human coronaviruses before the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 20% of these individuals also had antibodies that cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2, but these antibodies did not offer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections or hospitalizations.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread within the human population. Although SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus, most humans had been previously exposed to other antigenically distinct common seasonal human coronaviruses (hCoVs) before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Here, we quantified levels of SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies and hCoV-reactive antibodies in serum samples collected from 431 humans before the COVID-19 pandemic. We then quantified pre-pandemic antibody levels in serum from a separate cohort of 251 individuals who became PCR-confirmed infected with SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we longitudinally measured hCoV and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the serum of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Our studies indicate that most individuals possessed hCoV-reactive antibodies before the COVID-19 pandemic. We determined that similar to 20% of these individuals possessed non-neutralizing antibodies that cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins. These antibodies were not associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections or hospitalizations, but they were boosted upon SARS-CoV-2 infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据