3.9 Article

Comparison of immunogylobulin G responses to the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus in patients with SARS

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 839-846

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00432-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both the nucleocapsid (N) and the spike (S) proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) are able to induce strong humoral responses in humans following an infection. To compare the immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to the S and N proteins of SARS-CoV in SARS patients during the manifestation/convalescent period with those during the postinfection period, serum samples were collected from hospitalized SARS patients within 6 weeks after the onset of illness (set 1; 57 sequential samples from 19 patients) or 2 to 3 months after their recovery (set 2; 33 postinfection samples from 33 subjects). Serum samples from 100 healthy blood donors (set 3), collected in 2002, were also included. The specific IgG response to whole virus, the fragment from positions 450 to 650 of the S protein (S450-650), and the full-length N protein of SARS-CoV were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Western blot assays were carried out to confirm the ELISA results. Fifty-one of the serum samples in set 1 (89%) bound to the N protein, a proportion similar to that which recognized whole virus (79%) and the S-protein fragment (77%). All 33 serum samples from set 2 were strongly positive for N-protein-specific IgG, while 27 (82%) were positive for anti-S450-650 IgG. Two of the serum samples from set 3 were strongly positive for anti-N-protein IgG but not anti-S450-650 IgG. Similar levels of IgG responses to the S and N proteins were observed in SARS patients during the manifestation and convalescent stages. In the postinfection period, however, a number of patients had much lower serum IgG levels against S450-650 than against the N protein.

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

3.9
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