Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2022;7(13):e156372. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.156372.
Abstract
The role of immune responses to previously seen endemic coronavirus epitopes in severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and disease progression has not yet been determined. Here, we show that a key characteristic of fatal outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is that the immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is enriched for antibodies directed against epitopes shared with endemic beta-coronaviruses and has a lower proportion of antibodies targeting the more protective variable regions of the spike. The magnitude of antibody responses to the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein, its domains and subunits, and the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid also correlated strongly with responses to the endemic beta-coronavirus spike proteins in individuals admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with fatal COVID-19 outcomes, but not in individuals with nonfatal outcomes. This correlation was found to be due to the antibody response directed at the S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which has the highest degree of conservation between the beta-coronavirus spike proteins. Intriguingly, antibody responses to the less cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid were not significantly different in individuals who were admitted to an ICU with fatal and nonfatal outcomes, suggesting an antibody profile in individuals with fatal outcomes consistent with an “original antigenic sin” type response.
Authors
Anna L. McNaughton, Robert S. Paton, Matthew Edmans, Jonathan Youngs, Judith Wellens, Prabhjeet Phalora, Alex Fyfe, Sandra Belij-Rammerstorfer, Jai S. Bolton, Jonathan Ball, George W. Carnell, Wanwisa Dejnirattisai, Christina Dold, David W. Eyre, Philip Hopkins, Alison Howarth, Kreepa Kooblall, Hannah Klim, Susannah Leaver, Lian Ni Lee, César López-Camacho, Sheila F. Lumley, Derek C. Macallan, Alexander J. Mentzer, Nicholas M. Provine, Jeremy Ratcliff, Jose Slon-Compos, Donal Skelly, Lucas Stolle, Piyada Supasa, Nigel Temperton, Chris Walker, Beibei Wang, Duncan Wyncoll, Oxford Protective T Cell Immunology for COVID-19 (OPTIC) consortium, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) consortium, Peter Simmonds, Teresa Lambe, John Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, Peter J.M. Openshaw, International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) investigators, Uri Obolski, Marc Turner, Miles Carroll, Juthathip Mongkolsapaya, Gavin Screaton, Stephen H. Kennedy, Lisa Jarvis, Eleanor Barnes, Susanna Dunachie, José Lourenço, Philippa C. Matthews, Tihana Bicanic, Paul Klenerman, Sunetra Gupta, Craig P. Thompson
Usage data is cumulative from December 2022 through December 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,826 | 9,684 |
| 104 | 84 | |
| Figure | 207 | 9 |
| Table | 31 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 45 | 8 |
| Citation downloads | 50 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,263 | 9,785 |
| Total Views | 12,048 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
