Quantifying antibody kinetics and RNA detection during early-phase SARS-CoV-2 infection by time since symptom onset

  1. Benny Borremans  Is a corresponding author
  2. Amandine Gamble
  3. K C Prager
  4. Sarah K Helman
  5. Abby M McClain
  6. Caitlin Cox
  7. Van Savage
  8. James O Lloyd-Smith
  1. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  2. National Marine Mammal Foundation, United States

Abstract

Understanding and mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission hinges on antibody and viral RNA data that inform exposure and shedding, but extensive variation in assays, study group demographics and laboratory protocols across published studies confounds inference of true biological patterns. Our meta-analysis leverages 3,214 datapoints from 516 individuals in 21 studies to reveal that seroconversion of both IgG and IgM occurs around 12 days post symptom onset (range 1-40), with extensive individual variation that is not significantly associated with disease severity. IgG and IgM detection probabilities increase from roughly 10% at symptom onset to 98-100% by day 22, after which IgM wanes while IgG remains reliably detectable. RNA detection probability decreases from roughly 90% to zero by day 30, and is highest in faeces and lower respiratory tract samples. Our findings provide a coherent evidence base for interpreting clinical diagnostics, and for the mathematical models and serological surveys that underpin public health policies.

Data availability

All data are available in Source data 1.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Benny Borremans

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    bennyborremans@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7779-4107
  2. Amandine Gamble

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. K C Prager

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0669-0754
  4. Sarah K Helman

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Abby M McClain

    National Marine Mammal Foundation, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5000-4198
  6. Caitlin Cox

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Van Savage

    Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James O Lloyd-Smith

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7941-502X

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (707840)

  • Benny Borremans

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (PREEMPT D18AC00031)

  • Amandine Gamble
  • James O Lloyd-Smith

UCLA AIDS Institute and Charity Treks

  • Amandine Gamble
  • James O Lloyd-Smith

National Science Foundation (DEB-1557022)

  • K C Prager
  • James O Lloyd-Smith

US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (RC‐2635)

  • K C Prager
  • James O Lloyd-Smith

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (Cooperative Agreement W9132T1920006)

  • K C Prager
  • James O Lloyd-Smith

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Talía Malagón, McGill University, Canada

Version history

  1. Received: June 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 4, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 7, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 22, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Borremans et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,611
    views
  • 493
    downloads
  • 60
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Benny Borremans
  2. Amandine Gamble
  3. K C Prager
  4. Sarah K Helman
  5. Abby M McClain
  6. Caitlin Cox
  7. Van Savage
  8. James O Lloyd-Smith
(2020)
Quantifying antibody kinetics and RNA detection during early-phase SARS-CoV-2 infection by time since symptom onset
eLife 9:e60122.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60122

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60122

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Caroline Krag, Maria Saur Svane ... Tinne Laurberg
    Research Article

    Background:

    Comorbidity with type 2 diabetes (T2D) results in worsening of cancer-specific and overall prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The treatment of CRC per se may be diabetogenic. We assessed the impact of different types of surgical cancer resections and oncological treatment on risk of T2D development in CRC patients.

    Methods:

    We developed a population-based cohort study including all Danish CRC patients, who had undergone CRC surgery between 2001 and 2018. Using nationwide register data, we identified and followed patients from date of surgery and until new onset of T2D, death, or end of follow-up.

    Results:

    In total, 46,373 CRC patients were included and divided into six groups according to type of surgical resection: 10,566 Right-No-Chemo (23%), 4645 Right-Chemo (10%), 10,151 Left-No-Chemo (22%), 5257 Left-Chemo (11%), 9618 Rectal-No-Chemo (21%), and 6136 Rectal-Chemo (13%). During 245,466 person-years of follow-up, 2556 patients developed T2D. The incidence rate (IR) of T2D was highest in the Left-Chemo group 11.3 (95% CI: 10.4–12.2) per 1000 person-years and lowest in the Rectal-No-Chemo group 9.6 (95% CI: 8.8–10.4). Between-group unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing T2D was similar and non-significant. In the adjusted analysis, Rectal-No-Chemo was associated with lower T2D risk (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.98]) compared to Right-No-Chemo.

    For all six groups, an increased level of body mass index (BMI) resulted in a nearly twofold increased risk of developing T2D.

    Conclusions:

    This study suggests that postoperative T2D screening should be prioritised in CRC survivors with overweight/obesity regardless of type of CRC treatment applied.

    Funding:

    The Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17SA0031406); TrygFonden (101390; 20045; 125132).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.