Rials Table S2) subsequent analyses were strattrends (Supplementary Materials Table SRials Table S2) subsequent analyses

Rials Table S2) subsequent analyses were strattrends (Supplementary Materials Table S
Rials Table S2) subsequent analyses were strattrends (Supplementary Components Table S2) and, as a result,and, therefore, subsequent analysesby obese versus by obese versus non-obese. Obesity was improved reporting of mulified were stratified non-obese. Obesity was associated with associated with elevated reporting of numerous symptoms chills or feverish but no measured no measured fever, tiple symptoms including fever, such as fever, chills or feverish butfever, myalgias, and myalgias, and six symptoms (Figure 2). Except for congestion (Or a related and con6 symptoms (Figure two). Except for congestion (OR 0.87 [0.43.70]),0.87 [0.43.70]), a similar and constant but non-significant trend was symptoms. all symptoms. All round, sistent but non-significant trend was SB 271046 Autophagy observed for allobserved forOverall, obese individuobese individuals registered additional symptoms and more key symptoms. Age seems als registered a lot more symptoms and more primary symptoms. Age appears to play an imto play an essential role when assessing obesity and symptom phenotype and fever was portant part when assessing obesity and symptom phenotype and fever was much more commore BI-0115 Inhibitor frequently reported amongst obese vs. non-obese folks beneath 40 years of age monly reported amongst obese vs. non-obese people beneath 40 years of age (OR four.99 (OR four.99 [1.973.35]) but not over 40 years (OR 1.32 [0.30.57]). Similarly, reporting [1.973.35]) but not extra 40 years (OR 1.32 obese vs. non–obese below 40 years (OR three.0 6 symptoms was more than popular amongst [0.30.57]). Similarly, reporting six symptoms was much more frequent among obese vs. non–obese below 40 years (OR 3.0 [1.32.85]) but [1.32.85]) but not for those greater than 40 years (OR 0.94 [0.18.26]). A strikingly not for those higher than 40 years (OR 0.94 [0.18.26]). A strikingly similar measures similar trend was observed for most other symptoms and aggregate symptom trend was observed3). To understand if comparable age-dependent effects might be observed amongst 3). To un(Figure for many other symptoms and aggregate symptom measures (Figure younger derstand if equivalent age-dependent effects might be observed among younger age groups, we performed subgroup analyses on 199 versus 309 year age groups; no equivalent agedependent effects were observed (Figure 4).Viruses 2021, 13,7 ofage groups, we performed subgroup analyses on 199 versus 309 year age groups; no equivalent age-dependent effects have been observed (Figure 4). 3.3. Obesity and Functional Immune Response Amongst the identical 262 seropositive men and women, peak SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG titers have been 0.92 ug/mL (SD 2.47) among obese (n = 81) and 1.12 ug/mL (SD 3.21) among non-obese (n = 181) participants (p = 0.601). Deep immune profiling was performed among a subset of 77 participants which includes 25 obese and 52 non-obese individuals. Mean ELISA NC IgG titers had been 0.35 (SD 0.48) amongst obese versus 0.30 (0.34) amongst non-obese individuals (p = 0.57). Viral neutralization activity was detected in 3/25 (12.0 ) and 6/52 (11.5 ) of obese and nonobese men and women, respectively (p = 0.95). When assessing 20 immune capabilities measured by Luminex, no univariate variations have been observed in between obesity categories, with sparse levels across each obese and non-obese men and women tightly linked to antibody titers (Figure 5A, Supplementary Components Table S3). Similarly, no clustering or trends involving BMI and immunological functions were identifiable either by UMAP (Figure 5B) or Spearman’s correlation (Figure 5C). Lastly, provided proof t.