RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comprehensive Serological Profile and Specificity of Maternal and Neonatal Cord Blood SARS CoV-2 Antibodies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.12.06.21267328
DO 10.1101/2021.12.06.21267328
A1 Rupsa C. Boelig
A1 Sidhartha Chaudhury
A1 Zubair H. Aghai
A1 Emily Oliver
A1 Francesca Manusco
A1 Vincenzo Berghella
A1 Elke Bergmann-Leitner
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/07/2021.12.06.21267328.abstract
AB Objective To describe the profile and specificity of maternal and neonatal cord-blood antibody profile in response SARS-CoV-2 virus exposureMethods This is a Prospective cohort study of delivering patients at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital from April 2020-February 2021. Primary objective was to describe unique maternal and fetal antibody epitope titers and specificity in those patients with COVID-19 history. Serologic profile assessed with a multiplex platform. Antigens used were: HA-trimer Influenza A (Hong Kong H3), spike trimers for SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and betacoronaviruses HKU-1 and OC43, as well as the spike N-terminal domain (NTD), spike receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid protein (N; full length) for SARS-CoV-2.Results 112 maternal samples and 101 maternal and cord blood pairs were analyzed. Thirty-seven had a known history of COVID-19 (positive PCR test) in the pregnancy and of those, 17 (47%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 within 30 days of delivery. Fifteen of remaining seventy-six (20%) without a known diagnosis had positive maternal serology. For those with history of COVID-19 we identified robust IgG response in maternal blood to CoV2 nucleocapsid (N), spike (S) full-length and S (RBD) antigens with more modest responses to the S (NTD) antigen. By contrast, the maternal blood IgM response appeared more specific to S (full-length), than N, S (RBD) or S (NTD) epitopes. There were significantly higher maternal and cord blood IgG response not just to CoV2 spike (p < 10−18), but also CoV1 spike (p < 10−9) and MERS spike (p < 10−8). By contrast, maternal IgM responses were more specific to CoV2 (p < 10−19), but to a lesser degree for CoV1 (p < 10−5), and no significant differences for MERS. Maternal and cord-blood IgG were highly correlated for both S and N (R2 = 0.96 and 0.94).Conclusions Placental transfer is efficient, with robust N and S responses. Both nucleocapsid and spike antibody responses should be studied for a better understanding of COVID-19 immunity. IgG antibodies are cross reactive with related CoV-1 and MERS spike epitopes while IgM, which cannot cross placenta to provide neonatal passive immunity, is more SARS CoV-2 specific. Neonatal cord blood may have significantly different fine-specificity than maternal blood, despite the high efficiency of IgG transfer.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementRCB is supported by PhRMA Faculty Development Award. This study funded in part through NIH grant 3R21HD101127-01S1 (PI RCB) and a Pilot Grant (ZA) through an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number U54 GM104941 (PI: Hicks).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Thomas Jefferson University IRB gave ethical approval for this work; all participants provided written consent.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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors