Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 29, 2026.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood

Dianna L. Ng, Gregory M. Goldgof, Brian R. Shy and 46 more

Nature Communications · 2020 · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18468-8

Abstract

Given the limited availability of serological testing to date, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in different populations has remained unclear. Here, we report very low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in two San Francisco Bay Area populations. Seroreactivity was 0.26% in 387 hospitalized patients admitted for non-respiratory indications and 0.1% in 1,000 blood donors in early April 2020. We additionally describe the longitudinal dynamics of immunoglobulin-G (IgG), immunoglobulin-M (IgM), and in vitro neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19 patients. The median time to seroconversion ranged from 10.3–11.0 days for these 3 assays. Neutralizing antibodies rose in tandem with immunoglobulin titers following symptom onset, and positive percent agreement between detection of IgG and neutralizing titers was >93%. These findings emphasize the importance of using highly accurate tests for surveillance studies in low-prevalence populations, and provide evidence that seroreactivity using SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG and anti-spike IgM assays are generally predictive of in vitro neutralizing capacity.

References 16

  1. 1.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa2001017

  2. 2.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2020.2648

  3. 3.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30079-5

  4. 4.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.
  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-020-0897-1

  7. 7.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1093/cid/ciaa344

  8. 8.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1093/cid/civ951

  9. 9.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01009.x

  10. 10.
  11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dyab010

  13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2020.8279

  14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2020.5445

  15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052

Cited by papers we hold 8

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.