The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization =============================================================================================================================== * Amy B. Karger * James D. Brien * Jayne M. Christen * Santosh Dhakal * Troy J. Kemp * Sabra L. Klein * Ligia A. Pinto * Lakshmanane Premkumar * John D. Roback * Raquel A. Binder * Karl W. Boehme * Suresh Boppana * James M. Crawford * John L. Daiss * Alan P. Dupuis II * Ana M. Espino * Catherine Forconi * J. Craig Forrest * Roxie C. Girardin * Douglas A. Granger * Steve W. Granger * Natalie S. Haddad * Christopher D. Heaney * Danielle T. Hunt * Joshua L. Kennedy * Christopher L. King * Kate Kruczynski * Joshua LaBaer * F. Eun-Hyung Lee * William T. Lee * Shan-Lu Liu * Gerard Lozanski * Todd Lucas * Ann M. Moormann * Vel Murugan * Nkemakonam C. Okoye * Petraleigh Pantoja * Anne F. Payne * Jin Park * Swetha Pinninti * Amelia K. Pinto * Nora Pisanic * Ji Qiu * Carlos A. Sariol * Lusheng Song * Tara L. Steffen * E. Taylor Stone * Linda M. Styer * Mehul S. Suthar * Stefani N. Thomas * Bharat Thyagarajan * Jennifer L. Yates * Kimia Sobhani ## Abstract **Background** In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and “to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies.” SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization. **Methods** To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard reference material and First WHO International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data. **Results** SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 ELISA methods, 13 multiplex assays, 9 neutralization assays, and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards. **Conclusions** SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 virus and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons. ## Introduction The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network for COVID-19, or SeroNet, was launched on October 8, 2020, as a collaborative initiative to expand research on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. SeroNet is comprised of investigators from 25 US biomedical research institutions, working in partnership with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center, which is managed by the FNLCR.1 Of the 25 participating research institutions, 8 are designated as Serological Sciences Centers of Excellence (funded by U54 grants), 13 are funded with U01 grants to carry out specific research projects related to COVID-19 immunity, and 4 institutions are funded by subcontracts and are designated as Serological Sciences Network Capacity Building Centers.1 One of the primary goals of this partnership is “to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies.”1 To this end, SeroNet formed a working group, the Serology Assays, Samples, and Materials Operations Group (abbreviated as “Serology Assay Ops”), in December 2020 to allow for coordinated development and collaborative sharing of serology assay procedures, and to establish processes for harmonizing and standardizing methodologies using reference materials across institutions. Establishing harmonized and standardized SARS-CoV-2 serological assays can allow cross-comparison and pooling of research study results and facilitate clinical interpretation of results for patient care. While there are 85 serological assays approved by the FDA for emergency use,2 the quick development of assays has led to the lack of harmonized cut-offs and reporting units. Furthermore, there are no consensus guidelines on reporting standards or clarity on the clinical interpretation and relevance of results. This has created a complex landscape for interpreting both research and clinical serological assay results. For example, several studies have reported on heterogeneity in serological assay performance that would have a significant impact on research study conclusions and clinical interpretations related to longitudinal serosurveillance.3-6 Specifically, certain assays demonstrate reduced sensitivity over time after an initial SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. Muecksch et al. reported that the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 anti-Nucleocapsid IgG assay dropped from a peak sensitivity of 98% at 21 – 40 days post-PCR diagnosis, to around 70% when patients were tested ≥ 81 days post-diagnosis, whereas the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 anti-Nucleocapsid total antibody assay and Siemens SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) total antibody assay both maintained high sensitivity (95 – 100%) on the same set of serial samples. Narowski et al. also found a significant decline in the longitudinal sensitivity of their lab-developed nucleocapsid assay in a study of healthcare workers.6 Perez-Saez et al. similarly demonstrated that the rates of sero-reversion at least 8 months after the initial infection differed greatly depending on the serological assay used.4 While the sero-reversion rate of the EuroImmun semiquantitative anti-S1 IgG ELISA was 26%, the rate was significantly lower for the Roche anti-Nucleocapsid total antibody assay (1.2%) and the Roche semiquantitative anti-RBD total antibody assay (0%).4 Additionally, numerous studies rely on neutralization assays as gold standard methods for determining the functional relevance of ligand-binding methods, but comparison studies have demonstrated variability in results for live-virus neutralization, pseudovirus neutralization, and surrogate neutralization assays (e.g., ACE2 inhibition assays),7-9 raising the importance of assay harmonization and standardization across laborartories. Therefore, SeroNet aims to address these knowledge gaps in SARS-CoV-2 serological assay research by establishing collaborative initiatives to characterize, compare, and harmonize SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. This manuscript describes the depth and breadth of serological assays developed and implemented within the SeroNet consortium, and outlines a proposed process to establish assay traceability to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard reference material and to the WHO International Standard (WHO IS 20/136) for these diverse assays, with the ultimate goal of establishing harmonized reporting standards. This will facilitate cross-comparison of results and provide clarity for their clinical interpretation, including in response to circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. ## Methods ### Compilation of data on SeroNet serological assays SeroNet institutions were queried by email between January and July 2021 and asked to complete a comprehensive serological assay survey to describe serological assays developed or implemented at their institution. The survey requested information on assay and sample type(s), instrument platform and reagents, data output, antibody isotype(s) detected, targeted antigens and virus strain(s), assay performance, cut-offs, use of standards and quality controls, method comparison studies, regulatory status, current use/applications for assays, and publications using each assay. *Protocol for establishing traceability of serology assays to the U*.*S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard and First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin* FNLCR developed a recommended protocol for SeroNet institutions to establish serology assay traceability to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standard. In short, for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay platforms (ELISA), the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 standard is measured on the same 96-well plate as the daily assay standard, run as serial dilutions in triplicate and quadruplicate respectively (**Figure 1**). Standard curves are constructed for both the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology standard and daily assay standard. A test of parallelism and linearity between the two dose-response curves is then performed to ensure that immunoaffinity differences or matrix effects do not prevent accurate calibration with the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standard. Units based on the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard can then be assigned to the assay daily standard, to harmonize assays and units for results reporting. For non-plate-based assay platforms, similar dilution-based standard curves are constructed. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/F1) Figure 1: Example plate map for assay calibration set-up Numbers indicate suggested serial dilutions. Serial dilutions of primary and secondary calibrators (reference materials) are plated in triplicate, and the daily internal assay standard is plated in quadruplicate. C_STD: Daily internal assay standard STD-C1, C2, and C3: Primary calibrator (primary reference material or standard) STD-T1, T2, and T3: Secondary calibrator (secondary reference material or standard) NEG: Negative control sample PC1: Positive control sample 1 PC2: Positive control sample 2 Traceability of the FNLCR standard to the First WHO International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136) was established, to allow SeroNet assays to convert U.S. Serology Standard units to WHO IS units. The WHO IS 20/136 is a freeze-dried equivalent of 0.25 mL of pooled plasma from 11 individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Once reconstituted the WHO standard has an arbitrary unitage of 1000 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL. Eight serial dilutions of the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard and WHO IS 20/136 were run in triplicate. Parallel line analysis, which included tests for parallelism and linearity, was utilized to assign WHO IS 20/136 standard units to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard; this will allow SeroNet institutions to convert U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard units to WHO standard units for serological methods. ## Results ### SeroNet Serology Assay data Of the 25 institutions involved with SeroNet, 23 institutions reported performing between one to seven serology assays, and provided descriptive and performance data. Serology assay data were also obtained from the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), both of which collaborate with SeroNet. Collectively, Seronet institutions reported development of 27 in-house ELISA methods (**Table 1**).6,10-26 The majority of ELISA methods were developed for testing of serum and/or plasma, with additional methods available for testing dried blood spots (DBS), saliva/oral fluid, and breast milk. Two methods have been granted FDA EUA approval, 3 methods are pending FDA EUA, 4 methods are validated for high-complexity testing in a CLIA-certified laboratory, and 18 methods are for research-use only (RUO). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for in-house ELISA methods ranged from 67.4 – 100 % and 90 – 100%, respectively. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/T1) Table 1: Laboratory-developed singleplex ELISA assays Eight institutions reported development or use of multiplex or protein arrays for antibody detection (**Table 2**).27-37 Sample types include serum, plasma, DBS, saliva, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for multiplex and protein array methods range from 85 – 98.8 % and 95.2 – 100 %, respectively. Neutralization assays were developed by 9 institutions, with sample types including serum, plasma, BAL fluid, nasal wash, DBS, and breast milk (**Table 3**).15,24,29,38-50 Assays fall into three mechanistic categories – competitive binding assays, pseudotyped neutralization assays, and live virus neutralization assays. The competitive binding assay measures the ability of antibodies to block interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and human ACE2 receptor. Virus pseudotype neutralization assays, mainly HIV- and VSV-based, use full length spike incorporated in the viral particle to measure the capability of neutralizing antibodies to block viral entry into the target cells. SARS-CoV-2 live virus plaque or focus reduction neutralization assays measure the ability of neutralizing antibodies to block the spreading infection of authentic SARS-COV-2 in cell culture. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for neutralization methods developed within SeroNet range from 93 – 100 % and 97 – 100 %, respectively. Lastly, 9 institutions report use of 12 commercial serology methods (**Table 4**). Commercial methods detect IgG, IgM, and/or total Ig to spike, RBD, and/or nucleocapsid antigens in serum or plasma. Of the commercial methods in use, 10 are FDA EUA approved, 1 is pending FDA EUA, and 1 is RUO. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/T2) Table 2: Laboratory-developed multiplex assays View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/T3) Table 3: Neutralization assays View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/T4) Table 4: Commercial assays ### Establishment of SeroNet assay traceability to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standard and First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin Units for the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology standard were initially established by FNLCR based on measurements performed by eight laboratories (**Table 5**). Subsequently, FNLCR further established traceability of the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology standard to the WHO IS 20/136 by using four FNLCR ligand binding serology assays, with assessment of neutralization tested at NIAID’s Integrated Research Facility (IRF) (**Table 5**). The U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard was made available to the public in December 2020. Thus far, there have been 124 requests for U.S. SARS-CoV-2 standard material, and 19 requests for the reference panel samples. View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/02/2022.02.27.22271399/T5) Table 5: Units assigned to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standard ## Discussion SeroNet has collectively established a diverse array of methodologies for measurement of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a variety of biological fluids. Methods include laboratory-developed ELISAs, multiplex assays, and neutralization assays, most used for research-only purposes, as well as commercial assays available for patient care or research studies. Assays have been developed to test unique sample types, including DBS, saliva/oral fluid, breast milk, nasal washes, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Binding assays identify IgM, IgG, IgA, and/or total antibodies to nucleocapsid, spike, RBD and/or N-terminal domain (NTD) antigens, and neutralization assays rely on three methods to quantify antibodies with functional neutralizing activity. This diversity of assay methods allows for robust investigation of multiple aspects of the serological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and for cross-comparison of assay performance across platforms and institutions within SeroNet. With the rapid development of numerous methods for serological assessment, as exemplified by the depth and breadth of assays within SeroNet, it is critical to establish assay harmonization and standardized reporting units to facilitate cross-comparison of results across studies, as well as for streamlined meta-analyses. To this end, FNLCR has provided the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard reference material, which has traceability to the First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin, to SeroNet sites performing serological assays, to allow establishment of standardized reporting of results in binding antibody units (BAU) per mL traceable to the WHO standard. These efforts may more rapidly facilitate the establishment of a universal cut-off as a correlate of protection, which will be critical to broaden the clinical utility of serological testing for patient care, will allow vaccine trials to transition to an immunogenicity endpoint rather than morbidity or mortality endpoints (immuno-bridging), and will guide decisions regarding optimal scheduling of future vaccine doses to optimize protective efficacy for the general immunocompetent population and susceptible immunocompromised sub-populations. In summary, SeroNet is well-positioned to rapidly and collaboratively advance our understanding of the immune response to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, with ongoing evaluation of serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. The collective effort of institutions involved with SeroNet, to both establish diverse and complementary serological assays, and establish traceability of these diverse assays to the WHO standard, will allow for comprehensive investigation of immune responses and facilitate pooled analyses within the SeroNet consortium. This will enable achievement of the ultimate goal – establishment of a universal correlate of protection cut-off, which will provide a foundation for broader clinical use of serologic testing, as a guide for future decisions on scheduling of COVID-19 vaccine boosters, as well as for general assessment of COVID-19 vaccine immune responses against vaccine viruses and newly evolving variants of concern. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. ## Funding sources Funded by NCI Contract No. 75N91019D00024, Task Order No. 75N91021F00001 (award #’s 21X089, 21X090, and 21X091), and NCI Grants U54CA260591, U01CA260584, U01CA260469, U54CA260543, U54CA260560, U54CA260582, U54CA260492, U01CA260541, U01CA261277, U01CA261277, U01CA260526, U01CA261276, U01CA260539, U01CA260513, U01CA260462. ## Potential conflicts of interest A.B.K. is a consultant for Roche Diagnostics and has received research support from Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development. J.D.B., A.K.P., E.T.S., and T.L.S. have received research support from Altimmune. J.D.R. and M.S.S. are co-inventors on a patent filed by Emory University covering the serology assay described in this manuscript. M.S.S. serves on the advisory board for Moderna and Ocugen. F.E.L. is the founder of MicroB-plex, Inc. J.L.D. is the CSO of MicroB-plex, Inc. N.S.H. has been a senior scientist at MicroB-plex, Inc. F.E.L. has research grants from the Gates Foundation and Genentech, is on the SAB of Be Biopharma, Inc., and received royalties from BLI, Inc., as an inventor for the plasma cell survival media. S.B. has research support from Merck and Pfizer, and is a member of the CMV Vaccine Advisory Committees of Merck and Moderna. S.P. has research support from Moderna. D.A.G. is the Chief Scientific and Strategy Advisor of Salimetrics, LLC. S.W.G. is the Chief Scientific Officer of Salimetrics, LLC. All remaining authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. ## Acknowledgments ## Footnotes * Three co-authors were inadvertently left off the manuscript and have now been added along with their relevant disclosures and funding sources. * Received February 27, 2022. * Revision received March 2, 2022. * Accepted March 2, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.NCI Serological Sciences Network for COVID-19 (SeroNet). Accessed December 2, 2021. [https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network](https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network) 2. 2.In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs -Serology and Other Adaptive Immune Response Tests for SARS-CoV-Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Accessed December 2, 2021. [https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas-serology-and-other-adaptive-immune-response-tests-sars-cov-2](https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas-serology-and-other-adaptive-immune-response-tests-sars-cov-2) 3. 3.Muecksch F, Wise H, Batchelor B, et al. Longitudinal Serological Analysis and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Patients. J Infect Dis. 02 13 2021;223(3):389–398. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa659 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiaa659&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32793928&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 4. 4.Perez-Saez J, Zaballa ME, Yerly S, et al. Persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: immunoassay heterogeneity and implications for serosurveillance. Clin Microbiol Infect. Nov 2021;27(11):1695.e7-1695.e12. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.040 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.040&link_type=DOI) 5. 5.Muecksch F, Wise H, Templeton K, et al. Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: implications for the ability of serological assays to predict immunity. medRxiv. Jul 07 2021;doi:10.1101/2021.07.02.21259939 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4wNy4wMi4yMTI1OTkzOXYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDMvMDIvMjAyMi4wMi4yNy4yMjI3MTM5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 6. 6.Narowski TM, Raphel K, Adams LE, et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine induces robust specific and cross-reactive IgG and unequal neutralizing antibodies in naive and previously infected people. Cell Rep. Jan 20 2022:110336. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110336 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110336&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Sholukh AM, Fiore-Gartland A, Ford ES, et al. Evaluation of Cell-Based and Surrogate SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays. J Clin Microbiol. 09 20 2021;59(10):e0052721. doi:10.1128/JCM.00527-21 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/JCM.00527-21&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.von Rhein C, Scholz T, Henss L, et al. Comparison of potency assays to assess SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody capacity in COVID-19 convalescent plasma. J Virol Methods. 02 2021;288:114031. doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.114031 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.114031&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Olbrich L, Castelletti N, Schälte Y, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of seven different seroassays including direct viral neutralisation in a representative cohort for SARS-CoV-2. J Gen Virol. 10 2021;102(10)doi:10.1099/jgv.0.001653 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/jgv.0.001653&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Röltgen K, Powell AE, Wirz OF, et al. Defining the features and duration of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with disease severity and outcome. Sci Immunol. 12 07 2020;5(54)doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.abe0240 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImltbXVub2xvZ3kiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjUvNTQvZWFiZTAyNDAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMy8wMi8yMDIyLjAyLjI3LjIyMjcxMzk5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 11. 11.Alter G, Yu J, Liu J, et al. Immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants in humans. Nature. 08 2021;596(7871):268–272. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03681-2 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-021-03681-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34107529&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 12. 12.Amanat F, Stadlbauer D, Strohmeier S, et al. A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. medRxiv. Apr 16 2020;doi:10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wMy4xNy4yMDAzNzcxM3YyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDMvMDIvMjAyMi4wMi4yNy4yMjI3MTM5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 13. 13.Arthur JM, Forrest JC, Boehme KW, et al. Development of ACE2 autoantibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257016. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257016 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0257016&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Collier AY, McMahan K, Yu J, et al. Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Pregnant and Lactating Women. JAMA. 06 15 2021;325(23):2370–2380. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.7563 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2021.7563&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Klein SL, Pekosz A, Park HS, et al. Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population. J Clin Invest. 11 02 2020;130(11):6141–6150. doi:10.1172/JCI142004 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI142004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32764200&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 16. 16.Premkumar L, Segovia-Chumbez B, Jadi R, et al. The receptor binding domain of the viral spike protein is an immunodominant and highly specific target of antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 patients. Sci Immunol. 06 11 2020;5(48)doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.abc8413 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImltbXVub2xvZ3kiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjUvNDgvZWFiYzg0MTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMy8wMi8yMDIyLjAyLjI3LjIyMjcxMzk5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 17. 17.Salazar E, Kuchipudi SV, Christensen PA, et al. Convalescent plasma anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein ectodomain and receptor-binding domain IgG correlate with virus neutralization. J Clin Invest. 12 01 2020;130(12):6728–6738. doi:10.1172/JCI141206 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI141206&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32910806&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 18. 18.Seegmiller JC, Kokaisel EL, Story SJ, et al. Method comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serology assays involving three commercially available platforms and a novel in-house developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Clin Biochem. Dec 2020;86:34–35. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.08.004 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.08.004&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Stadlbauer D, Amanat F, Chromikova V, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion in Humans: A Detailed Protocol for a Serological Assay, Antigen Production, and Test Setup. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 06 2020;57(1):e100. doi:10.1002/cpmc.100 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cpmc.100&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32302069&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 20. 20.Stadlbauer D, Tan J, Jiang K, et al. Repeated cross-sectional sero-monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in New York City. Nature. 02 2021;590(7844):146–150. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2912-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-020-2912-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33142304&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 21. 21.Suthar MS, Zimmerman MG, Kauffman RC, et al. Rapid Generation of Neutralizing Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Patients. Cell Rep Med. Jun 23 2020;1(3):100040. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100040 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100040&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32835303&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 22. 22.Thomas SN, Altawallbeh G, Zaun CP, et al. Initial determination of COVID-19 seroprevalence among outpatients and healthcare workers in Minnesota using a novel SARS-CoV-2 total antibody ELISA. Clin Biochem. Apr 2021;90:15–22. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2021.01.010 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2021.01.010&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Vidal SJ, Collier AY, Yu J, et al. Correlates of Neutralization against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern by Early Pandemic Sera. J Virol. 06 24 2021;95(14):e0040421. doi:10.1128/JVI.00404-21 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiJKVkkuMDA0MDQtMjF2MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzAzLzAyLzIwMjIuMDIuMjcuMjIyNzEzOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 24. 24.Zeng C, Evans JP, Pearson R, et al. Neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 spike in COVID-19 patients, health care workers, and convalescent plasma donors. JCI Insight. 11 19 2020;5(22)doi:10.1172/jci.insight.143213 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/jci.insight.143213&link_type=DOI) 25. 25.Sariol CAA, Pantoja P, Serrano-Collazo C, et al. Function Is More Reliable than Quantity to Follow Up the Humoral Response to the Receptor-Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2-Spike Protein after Natural Infection or COVID-19 Vaccination. Viruses. 09 30 2021;13(10)doi:10.3390/v13101972 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/v13101972&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Roy V, Fischinger S, Atyeo C, et al. SARS-CoV-2-specific ELISA development. J Immunol Methods. 2020 Sep -Oct 2020;484-485:112832. doi:10.1016/j.jim.2020.112832 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jim.2020.112832&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Rosenberg ES, Tesoriero JM, Rosenthal EM, et al. Cumulative incidence and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in New York. Ann Epidemiol. 08 2020;48:23-29.e4. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.06.004 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.06.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32648546&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 28. 28.Styer LM, Hoen R, Rock J, et al. High-Throughput Multiplex SARS-CoV-2 IgG Microsphere Immunoassay for Dried Blood Spots: A Public Health Strategy for Enhanced Serosurvey Capacity. Microbiol Spectr. 09 03 2021;9(1):e0013421. doi:10.1128/Spectrum.00134-21 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/Spectrum.00134-21&link_type=DOI) 29. 29.Lee WT, Girardin RC, Dupuis AP, et al. Neutralizing Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Sera. J Infect Dis. 01 04 2021;223(1):47–55. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa673 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiaa673&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33104179&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 30. 30.Yates JL, Ehrbar DJ, Hunt DT, et al. Serological analysis reveals an imbalanced IgG subclass composition associated with COVID-19 disease severity. Cell Rep Med. Jul 20 2021;2(7):100329. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100329 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100329&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Pisanic N, Randad PR, Kruczynski K, et al. COVID-19 Serology at Population Scale: SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibody Responses in Saliva. J Clin Microbiol. 12 17 2020;59(1)doi:10.1128/JCM.02204-20 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI1OS8xL2UwMjIwNC0yMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzAzLzAyLzIwMjIuMDIuMjcuMjIyNzEzOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 32. 32.Canaday DH, Carias L, Oyebanji OA, et al. Reduced BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine response in SARS-CoV-2-naive nursing home residents. Clin Infect Dis. May 16 2021;doi:10.1093/cid/ciab447 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciab447&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33993265&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 33. 33.Tian L, Elsheikh EB, Patrone PN, et al. Towards Quantitative and Standardized Serological and Neutralization Assays for COVID-19. Int J Mol Sci. Mar 08 2021;22(5)doi:10.3390/ijms22052723 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijms22052723&link_type=DOI) 34. 34.Su Y, Chen D, Yuan D, et al. Multi-Omics Resolves a Sharp Disease-State Shift between Mild and Moderate COVID-19. Cell. 12 10 2020;183(6):1479-1495.e20. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.037 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.037&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33171100&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 35. 35.Xhangolli I, Dura B, Lee G, Kim D, Xiao Y, Fan R. Single-cell Analysis of CAR-T Cell Activation Reveals A Mixed T. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 04 2019;17(2):129–139. doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2019.03.002 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.gpb.2019.03.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 36. 36.Heaney CD, Pisanic N, Randad PR, et al. Comparative performance of multiplex salivary and commercially available serologic assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralization titers. J Clin Virol. 12 2021;145:104997. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104997 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104997&link_type=DOI) 37. 37.Haddad NS, Nguyen DC, Kuruvilla ME, et al. One-Stop Serum Assay Identifies COVID-19 Disease Severity and Vaccination Responses. Immunohorizons. 05 17 2021;5(5):322–335. doi:10.4049/immunohorizons.2100011 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTM6ImltbXVub2hvcml6b24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiNS81LzMyMiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzAzLzAyLzIwMjIuMDIuMjcuMjIyNzEzOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 38. 38.Amanat F, White KM, Miorin L, et al. An In Vitro Microneutralization Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Serology and Drug Screening. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 09 2020;58(1):e108. doi:10.1002/cpmc.108 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cpmc.108&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32585083&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 39. 39.Wajnberg A, Amanat F, Firpo A, et al. Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months. Science. 12 04 2020;370(6521):1227–1230. doi:10.1126/science.abd7728 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNzAvNjUyMS8xMjI3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDMvMDIvMjAyMi4wMi4yNy4yMjI3MTM5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 40. 40.Hassert M, Geerling E, Stone ET, et al. mRNA induced expression of human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in mice for the study of the adaptive immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. PLoS Pathog. 12 2020;16(12):e1009163. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1009163 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009163&link_type=DOI) 41. 41.Vanderheiden A, Edara VV, Floyd K, et al. Development of a Rapid Focus Reduction Neutralization Test Assay for Measuring SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies. Curr Protoc Immunol. 12 2020;131(1):e116. doi:10.1002/cpim.116 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cpim.116&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33215858&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 42. 42.Girardin RC, Dupuis AP, Payne AF, et al. Temporal Analysis of Serial Donations Reveals Decrease in Neutralizing Capacity and Justifies Revised Qualifying Criteria for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma. J Infect Dis. 03 03 2021;223(5):743–751. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiaa803 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiaa803&link_type=DOI) 43. 43.Dhakal S, Ruiz-Bedoya CA, Zhou R, et al. Sex Differences in Lung Imaging and SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in a COVID-19 Golden Syrian Hamster Model. mBio. 08 31 2021;12(4):e0097421. doi:10.1128/mBio.00974-21 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/mBio.00974-21&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34253053&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 44. 44.Morgenlander WR, Henson SN, Monaco DR, et al. Antibody responses to endemic coronaviruses modulate COVID-19 convalescent plasma functionality. J Clin Invest. 04 01 2021;131(7)doi:10.1172/JCI146927 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI146927&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33571169&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 45. 45.Ogega CO, Skinner NE, Blair PW, et al. Durable SARS-CoV-2 B cell immunity after mild or severe disease. J Clin Invest. 04 01 2021;131(7)doi:10.1172/JCI145516 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI145516&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33571162&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 46. 46.Kared H, Redd AD, Bloch EM, et al. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 individuals. J Clin Invest. 03 01 2021;131(5)doi:10.1172/JCI145476 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI145476&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33427749&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom) 47. 47.Patel EU, Bloch EM, Clarke W, et al. Comparative Performance of Five Commercially Available Serologic Assays To Detect Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and Identify Individuals with High Neutralizing Titers. J Clin Microbiol. 01 21 2021;59(2)doi:10.1128/JCM.02257-20 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI1OS8yL2UwMjI1Ny0yMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzAzLzAyLzIwMjIuMDIuMjcuMjIyNzEzOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 48. 48.Röltgen K, Nielsen SCA, Arunachalam PS, et al. mRNA vaccination compared to infection elicits an IgG-predominant response with greater SARS-CoV-2 specificity and similar decrease in variant spike recognition. medRxiv. Apr 07 2021;doi:10.1101/2021.04.05.21254952 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMS4wNC4wNS4yMTI1NDk1MnYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDMvMDIvMjAyMi4wMi4yNy4yMjI3MTM5OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 49. 49.Pegu A, O’Connell S, Schmidt SD, et al. Durability of mRNA-1273-induced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants. bioRxiv. May 16 2021;doi:10.1101/2021.05.13.444010 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYmlvcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxOToiMjAyMS4wNS4xMy40NDQwMTB2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzAzLzAyLzIwMjIuMDIuMjcuMjIyNzEzOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 50. 50.Weissman D, Alameh MG, de Silva T, et al. D614G Spike Mutation Increases SARS CoV-2 Susceptibility to Neutralization. Cell Host Microbe. 01 13 2021;29(1):23-31.e4. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.012 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33306985&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F02%2F2022.02.27.22271399.atom)