| Literature DB >> 32501446 |
Wenling Wang1, Tianyu Wang1,2, Yao Deng1, Peihua Niu1, Ruhan A1, Jincun Zhao3, Malik Peiris4, Shixing Tang2, Wenjie Tan1,5.
Abstract
The Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a lethal zoonosis caused by MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and poses a significant threat to public health worldwide. Therefore, a rapid, sensitive, and specific serologic test for detecting anti-MERS-CoV antibodies in both humans and animals is urgently needed for the successful management of this illness. Here, we evaluated various novel luciferase immunosorbent assays (LISA) based on nucleocapsid protein (NP) as well as fragments derived from spike protein (S) including subunit 1 (S1), N terminal domain (NTD), receptor-binding domain (RBD) and subunit 2 (S2) of S for the detection of MERS-CoV-specific IgG. Fusion proteins, including nanoluciferase (NLuc) and various fragments derived from the NP or S protein of MERS-CoV, were expressed in human embryonic kidney 293 T cells. LISAs that detected anti-MERS-CoV IgG were further developed using cell lysates expressing various fusion proteins. Panels of human or animal samples infected with MERS-CoV were used to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of various LISAs in reference to a MERS-CoV RT-PCR, commercial S1-based ELISA, and pseudovirus particle neutralization test (ppNT). Our results showed that the S1-, RBD-, and NP-LISAs were more sensitive than the NTD- and S2-LISAs for the detection of anti-MERS-CoV IgG. Furthermore, the S1-, RBD-, and NP-LISAs were more sensitive (by at least 16-fold) than the commercially available S1-ELISA. Moreover, the S1-, RBD-, and NP-LISA specifically recognized anti-MERS-CoV IgG and did not cross-react with samples derived from other human CoV (OC43, 229E, HKU1, NL63)-infected patients. More importantly, these LISAs proved their applicability and reliability for detecting anti-MERS-CoV IgG in samples from camels, monkeys, and mice, among which the RBD-LISA exhibited excellent performance. The results of this study suggest that the novel MERS-CoV RBD- and S1- LISAs are highly effective platforms for the rapid and sensitive detection of anti-MERS-CoV IgG in human and animal samples. These assays have the potential to be used as serologic tests for the management and control of MERS-CoV infection.Entities:
Keywords: Luciferase immunosorbent assay (LISA); MERS-CoV; Samples of humans and animals; Serological IgG detection
Year: 2019 PMID: 32501446 PMCID: PMC7148641 DOI: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2019.12.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosaf Health
Comparison of LISAs with ppNT and S1-ELISA.a
| Name | Description | Number | Expected result | ppNT | ELISA | LISA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | RBD | NP | ||||||
| Convalescent sera | Individual serum from laboratory confirmed MERS patients | 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Pooled convalescent sera | Pooled serum samples from laboratory confirmed MERS patients | 2 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Non-MERS-CoV sera | Control sera from patients infected by common human coronaviruses | 7 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Normal sera (negative) control | Serum samples from 40 healthy blood donors | 40 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
+, positive; −, negative.
Summary of the detection results in animal samples.
| Sample | RT-PCR | ppNT | S1-LISA | RBD-LISA | NP-LISA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | + | − | − | − | − |
| C2 | + | + | + | + | − |
| C3 | + | + | − | − | − |
| C4 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C5 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C6 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C7 | + | − | + | + | + |
| C8 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C9 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C10 | + | + | + | + | − |
| C11 | + | + | − | + | − |
| C12 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C13 | + | − | − | − | − |
| C14 | + | + | − | + | − |
| C15 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C16 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C17 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C18 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C19 | + | + | + | + | + |
| C20 | + | + | − | + | − |
| C21-C38 | − | − | − | − | − |
| R1 | ND | − | − | − | − |
| R2 | ND | + | + | + | + |
| R3 | ND | + | + | + | + |
| M1 | ND | + | + | + | + |
| M2 | ND | + | + | + | + |
C, camel serum; C21-C38, normal camel serum controls; R1, marmoset serum, infected 3 days; R2, rhesus serum, infected 14 days; R3, rhesus serum, infected 21 days; M, MERS-CoV-infected mice.
Detection of nucleic acid extracted from swab samples; ND, not determined; +, positive; −, negative.
Figure 1Design diagrams of NLuc-fusion proteins and their expression in mammalian HEK 293 T cells. (A) Design diagram of five NLuc-antigen fusion proteins. The NLuc we used can be secreted. We list the marked “linker” as linker sequence (GSSG). (B) Expressions of the recombinant NLuc-S1, NLuc-NTD, NLuc-RBD, NLuc-S2, and NLuc-NP proteins were identified by a specific monoclonal antibody via WB.
Figure 2Sensitivities of the LISAs based on different NLuc-antigens. Serum samples from the first imported MERS patient in China collected 28 days after admission to the hospital (positive; Pos) were serially diluted and detected. One sample from a healthy blood donor was used as negative control (negative; Neg). Cut-off values were determined from serum samples from 40 healthy blood donors. RFI, relative fluorescence intensity.
Figure 3Specificity and cross-reactivity of a LISA and commercial S1-ELISA were tested with a panel of sera. The panel included single and pooled convalescent sera from confirmed MERS patients and negative control serum. The details of the sample descriptions are shown in Table 1.
Figure 4Correlation of the MERS-CoV LISAs (RFI) with the S1-ELISA (ratio) for detecting IgG antibody. Ratio of the S1-ELISA results was plotted against the RFI of the S1-LISA, RBD-LISA, and NP-LISA. The samples used in the plots included five convalescent serum samples from a MERS-CoV-infected patient with multiple dilutions and three sera from normal (negative) controls listed in Table 1.
Figure 5Analysis of the sensitivity of MERS-CoV S1-ELISA and LISAs. Five samples (four convalescent sera from MERS-CoV-infected patients and one normal serum used as negative control, the volume of the fifth convalescent serum was not enough for detection) were serially diluted and dispensed into the wells of the same plate. Each sample was tested in duplicate. Data are representatively from at least two independent experiments.
Figure 6ROC analysis. AUC values for the WHO antibody panel were determined using a 1:100 dilution (left) or 1:100, 1:400, and 1:1600 to 1:6400 dilution (right) using commercial Euroimmun S1-ELISA (A), in-house S1-LISA (B), RBD-LISA (C), and NP-LISA (D).