Abstract
Humanised recombinant antibodies specific to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein were calibrated against the NISTmAb standard human antibody to produce a fully quantitative antibody assay. The assay allows comparative studies between patient cohorts to be performed from which common properties may be derived. Two cohorts comparing patient vaccine response to AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S (AZ, 35 patients) and Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (Pfizer, 25 patients) shows close association of the 31st percentile of the AZ distribution (2.90 ± 1.10 mg/L) and the 7th percentile of the Pfizer distribution (1.11 ± 1.10 mg/L) corresponding to the efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection. The AZ IgG response distribution varies from 0.6 mg/L–25.4 mg/L with an average (mode) of 3.3 ± 1.0 mg/L; the Pfizer response distribution varies from 0.6 mg/L to 33.1 mg/L with a mode of 3.7 ± 1.0 mg/L. A third patient cohort looked at the recovery of 195 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive patient samples and 200 pre-pandemic patient samples. A fourth patient cohort reviewed the NIBSC Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Verification Panel. The diagnostic cut-off for RT-PCR-positive patient samples was 1.34 ± 1.10 mg/L and the NIBSC panel separated seropositive and seronegative samples at 1.90 ± 1.10 mg/L. The mean value of the two prevention and two recovery thresholds is 1.8 mg/L with 95% confidence limits of 0.2–3.4 mg/L. In recovery and, critically, infection prevention, an antibody concentration threshold estimate of 3.4 mg/L appears mechanistically important. An antibody immunity threshold predicting a mucosal concentration preventing SARS-CoV-2 colonisation of the nasopharyngeal cavity is discussed.
Competing Interest Statement
Prof Shaw is a Director and Founder of Attomarker Ltd.
Funding Statement
Exeter Alumni Emergency Appeal and Attomarker Ltd.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The samples collected studies in the paper were collected with informed consent. The use of the sample was approved by the Biosciences Research Ethics Committee, University of Exeter.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
