Literature DB >> 32594577

Heat inactivation of serum interferes with the immunoanalysis of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Xiumei Hu1,2, Taixue An1,2, Bo Situ1, Yuhai Hu3, Zihao Ou1, Qiang Li1,2, Xiaojing He1, Ye Zhang1, Peifu Tian3, Dehua Sun1, Yongyu Rui1, Qian Wang1, Dan Ding4, Lei Zheng1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The detection of serum antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as a new tool for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis. Since many coronaviruses are sensitive to heat, heating inactivation of samples at 56°C prior to testing is considered a possible method to reduce the risk of transmission, but the effect of heating on the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is still unclear.
METHODS: By comparing the levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies before and after heat inactivation of serum at 56°C for 30 minutes using a quantitative fluorescence immunochromatographic assay
RESULTS: We showed that heat inactivation significantly interferes with the levels of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. The IgM levels of all the 34 serum samples (100%) from COVID-19 patients decreased by an average level of 53.56%. The IgG levels were decreased in 22 of 34 samples (64.71%) by an average level of 49.54%. Similar changes can also be observed in the non-COVID-19 disease group (n = 9). Of note, 44.12% of the detected IgM levels were dropped below the cutoff value after heating, suggesting heat inactivation can lead to false-negative results of these samples.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that heat inactivation of serum at 56°C for 30 minutes interferes with the immunoanalysis of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Heat inactivation prior to immunoanalysis is not recommended, and the possibility of false-negative results should be considered if the sample was pre-inactivated by heating.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibodies; heat inactivation; immunoanalysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32594577      PMCID: PMC7361150          DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal        ISSN: 0887-8013            Impact factor:   2.352


INTRODUCTION

The current outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is posing a serious threat to public health. , , Early diagnosis of suspect cases is critical to reduce and interrupt the transmission of COVID‐19 from person to person. Currently, laboratory testing of viral nucleic acid by real‐time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) assay is the “gold standard” for COVID‐19 diagnosing. However, the requirement of sophisticated instruments and laboratory conditions, tedious experimental procedures, and longer detection time significantly hamper its widespread applicability. Antibodies produced in the blood after COVID‐19 infection are emerging as a promising class of biomarkers. The antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 are specific, sensitive, and more importantly, their detection can be much faster and simpler than RT‐PCR, which allows rapid screening of suspect cases to be possible. All the biological specimens for COVID‐19 testing should be considered to be potentially infectious. Therefore, the test must be performed by medical professionals with protective equipment in a qualified laboratory. To further reduce the risk of exposure to infectious agents, viral inactivation before sample handling is usually be recommended. , While the sensitivity of SARS‐CoV‐2 to the conditions of inactivation is unknown, it is reported that many coronaviruses such as SARS are heat‐sensitive and can be killed at 56°C for 30 minutes. , , , , It is thus inferred that heating at 56°C could be an effective approach for SARS‐CoV‐2 inactivation. However, the effect of heating at 56°C on COVID‐19 antibody detection is unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the levels of COVID‐19 antibody before and after heat inactivation.

METHODS

A total of 34 serum samples with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody results from patients with COVID‐19 infections, and 9 serum samples from non–COVID‐19 diseases were collected from Hankou Hospital, Wuhan city, with approval of the ethics committee (hkyy2020‐004). All patients with COVID‐19 infections were confirmed by RT‐PCR. The antibody detection kits for SARS‐CoV‐2 were obtained from Kingfocus Biomedical Engineering Co., Ltd, (AIE/quantum dot‐based fluorescence immunochromatographic assay, AFIA). The immunoassay quantitatively measures IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2. Serum samples before and after heat inactivation at 56°C for 30 minutes were analyzed according to the protocol. Briefly, 100 µL of serum was dropped on the test card and the fluorescence signal was measured after 15 minutes. Detection values above the cutoff threshold are considered positive for COVID‐19.

RESULTS

In the patients with COVID‐19, the IgM signals of all the 34 serum samples (100%) decreased (Figure 1, Table 1) by an average level of 53.56% ([95% CI, 7.64%‐99.49%]; P < .013) after heat inactivation. The IgG signals were decreased in 22 of 34 samples (64.71%) by an average level of 49.54% ([95% CI, 8.76%‐90.32%]), and 12 samples (35.29%) increased with a median percentage of 24.22%. 44.12% of the IgM signals from COVID‐19 patients were below the cutoff value after heat inactivation. In the non–COVID‐19 group, the IgM levels were decreased in 7 of 9 samples (77.78%) by an average of 43.31% (Figure 2, Table 2) after heat inactivation and 2 samples (22.22%) increased with an average level of 29.84% ([95% CI, 5.44%‐54.23%]). The IgG signals were decreased in 7 of 9 samples (77.78%) by an average level of 79.42% ([95% CI, 44.54%‐114.31%]), and 2 samples (22.22%) increased with an average level of 44.00% ([95% CI, 21.37%‐66.63%]). None of the measured antibodies became higher than the cutoff value after heating.
Figure 1

The changes in the IgM and IgG levels of the 34 serum samples from patients with COVID‐19 infections detected by AFIA before (blue dot) and after heat inactivation (red dot). Dash line indicates the cutoff value of the assay

Table 1

The signal intensity of the IgM and IgG levels of the 34 serum samples from patients with COVID‐19 infections detected by AFIA before and after heat inactivation

Patient IDIgMIgG
Before inactivationAfter inactivationBefore inactivationAfter inactivation
P13.160.5125.3614.25
P210.685.00109.0288.66
P33.701.2824.5241.56
P410.546.0738.0814.22
P52.981.403.597.08
P61.180.5799.4634.40
P71.350.5013.774.63
P83.830.9126.0212.23
P95.563.405.556.06
P1010.362.945.708.91
P112.110.96200.5661.56
P123.601.6225.0028.59
P131.210.75265.06162.96
P143.521.07182.7635.36
P153.172.7382.7825.12
P162.980.562.171.61
P171.220.8224.4126.28
P1817.533.9013.9413.43
P191.771.3812.2131.69
P202.741.1819.8814.83
P2110.6010.172.111.57
P221.541.0924.2412.76
P231.261.144.895.78
P242.190.9835.1414.69
P254.971.3416.5121.42
P2619.083.2238.1415.81
P271.981.913.374.00
P283.361.8117.239.57
P292.010.9513.994.52
P307.353.7917.575.10
P312.760.8242.8442.98
P325.061.431.430.94
P333.240.9812.935.19
P343.590.731.6311.45
Figure 2

The changes in the IgM and IgG levels of 9 serum samples from non–COVID‐19 group detected by AFIA before (blue dot) and after heat inactivation (red dot)

Table 2

The signal intensity of the IgM and IgG levels of 9 serum samples from non–COVID‐19 group detected by AFIA before and after heat inactivation

Patient IDIgMIgG
Before inactivationAfter inactivationBefore inactivationAfter inactivation
N10.420.270.090.04
N20.130.180.430.07
N30.250.020.090.02
N40.330.40.190.71
N50.630.260.70.02
N60.260.120.210.57
N71.010.970.820.13
N80.610.560.590.25
N90.690.340.390.00
The changes in the IgM and IgG levels of the 34 serum samples from patients with COVID‐19 infections detected by AFIA before (blue dot) and after heat inactivation (red dot). Dash line indicates the cutoff value of the assay The signal intensity of the IgM and IgG levels of the 34 serum samples from patients with COVID‐19 infections detected by AFIA before and after heat inactivation The changes in the IgM and IgG levels of 9 serum samples from non–COVID‐19 group detected by AFIA before (blue dot) and after heat inactivation (red dot) The signal intensity of the IgM and IgG levels of 9 serum samples from non–COVID‐19 group detected by AFIA before and after heat inactivation

DISCUSSION

This study analyzed the changes in SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody concentration before and after heat inactivation at 56°C for 30 minutes. We found that after heat inactivation, all of the serum IgM (100%) demonstrated significantly lower levels. For IgG, 64.71% of the sample levels dropped after heat inactivation. All immunological assays are highly dependent on the recognition and binding of antigens to antibodies. The decrease in SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody levels may be related to their structural change in denaturation and aggregation. , Previous studies have shown that antibodies can be denatured and lose their antigen‐binding activities after heating, and IgM is reported to be less thermally stable than IgG , due to their different compositions and structures of heavy chains. This is consistent with our results that SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM concentration decreased more significantly than IgG after heating. In addition, the IgG levels in 12 samples (35.29%) increased with a median of 24.22% after heating, which may be due to the increases in immunogenicity caused by the formation of IgG aggregates heating at 56°C. , , It is noteworthy that after heat inactivation, 44.12% of the IgM levels from COVID‐19 patients were below the cutoff value. These results suggest that heat inactivation of serum can lead to false‐negative results in these samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Heat inactivation of serum at 56°C for 30 minutes interferes with the immunoanalysis of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2. For highly suspected cases, the possibility of false‐negative results should be considered if the sample was inactivated by heating.
  20 in total

Review 1.  Structure-immunogenicity relationships of therapeutic proteins.

Authors:  Suzanne Hermeling; Daan J A Crommelin; Huub Schellekens; Wim Jiskoot
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 2.  Antibody structure, instability, and formulation.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Satish Singh; David L Zeng; Kevin King; Sandeep Nema
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.534

Review 3.  Heat denaturation of the antibody, a multi-domain protein.

Authors:  Yoko Akazawa-Ogawa; Hidenori Nagai; Yoshihisa Hagihara
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2017-12-18

4.  The effect of heat inactivation of serum on aggregation of immunoglobulins.

Authors:  R D Soltis; D Hasz; M J Morris; I D Wilson
Journal:  Immunology       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 7.397

5.  Effects of pulsed electric fields and heat treatment on stability and secondary structure of bovine immunoglobulin G.

Authors:  Si-Quan Li; Joshua A Bomser; Q Howard Zhang
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 5.279

6.  IgA, IgG, IgM and Lactoferrin Contents of Human Milk During Early Lactation and the Effect of Processing and Storage.

Authors:  Sara J Goldsmith; James S Dickson; Harold M Barnhart; Romeo T Toledo; Ronald R Eiten-Miller
Journal:  J Food Prot       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 2.077

7.  A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin.

Authors:  Peng Zhou; Xing-Lou Yang; Xian-Guang Wang; Ben Hu; Lei Zhang; Wei Zhang; Hao-Rui Si; Yan Zhu; Bei Li; Chao-Lin Huang; Hui-Dong Chen; Jing Chen; Yun Luo; Hua Guo; Ren-Di Jiang; Mei-Qin Liu; Ying Chen; Xu-Rui Shen; Xi Wang; Xiao-Shuang Zheng; Kai Zhao; Quan-Jiao Chen; Fei Deng; Lin-Lin Liu; Bing Yan; Fa-Xian Zhan; Yan-Yi Wang; Geng-Fu Xiao; Zheng-Li Shi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 69.504

8.  Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis.

Authors:  Zhengtu Li; Yongxiang Yi; Xiaomei Luo; Nian Xiong; Yang Liu; Shaoqiang Li; Ruilin Sun; Yanqun Wang; Bicheng Hu; Wei Chen; Yongchen Zhang; Jing Wang; Baofu Huang; Ye Lin; Jiasheng Yang; Wensheng Cai; Xuefeng Wang; Jing Cheng; Zhiqiang Chen; Kangjun Sun; Weimin Pan; Zhifei Zhan; Liyan Chen; Feng Ye
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 2.327

Review 9.  Coronavirus Disease 2019: Coronaviruses and Blood Safety.

Authors:  Le Chang; Ying Yan; Lunan Wang
Journal:  Transfus Med Rev       Date:  2020-02-21

10.  Stability and inactivation of SARS coronavirus.

Authors:  H F Rabenau; J Cinatl; B Morgenstern; G Bauer; W Preiser; H W Doerr
Journal:  Med Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  28 in total

1.  Rapid, Affordable, and Scalable SARS-CoV-2 Detection From Saliva.

Authors:  Andrew Hayden; Marcy Kuentzel; Sridar V Chittur
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2021-09

2.  Evaluation of CRISPR-Based Assays for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pei-Ying Huang; Xin Yin; Yue-Ting Huang; Qi-Qing Ye; Si-Qing Chen; Xun-Jie Cao; Tian-Ao Xie; Xu-Guang Guo
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 3.052

3.  Methods of Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 for Downstream Biological Assays.

Authors:  Edward I Patterson; Tessa Prince; Enyia R Anderson; Aitor Casas-Sanchez; Shirley L Smith; Cintia Cansado-Utrilla; Tom Solomon; Michael J Griffiths; Álvaro Acosta-Serrano; Lance Turtle; Grant L Hughes
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 5.226

4.  Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Jonathan J Deeks; Jacqueline Dinnes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; René Spijker; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Ada Adriano; Sophie Beese; Janine Dretzke; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Isobel M Harris; Malcolm J Price; Sabine Dittrich; Devy Emperador; Lotty Hooft; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Ann Van den Bruel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-06-25

5.  Heat inactivation of serum interferes with the immunoanalysis of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Xiumei Hu; Taixue An; Bo Situ; Yuhai Hu; Zihao Ou; Qiang Li; Xiaojing He; Ye Zhang; Peifu Tian; Dehua Sun; Yongyu Rui; Qian Wang; Dan Ding; Lei Zheng
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 2.352

6.  Heat Inactivation of Different Types of SARS-CoV-2 Samples: What Protocols for Biosafety, Molecular Detection and Serological Diagnostics?

Authors:  Boris Pastorino; Franck Touret; Magali Gilles; Xavier de Lamballerie; Remi N Charrel
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 5.048

7.  Diverse high-affinity DNA aptamers for wild-type and B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins from a pre-structured DNA library.

Authors:  Jiuxing Li; Zijie Zhang; Jimmy Gu; Hannah D Stacey; Jann C Ang; Alfredo Capretta; Carlos D M Filipe; Karen L Mossman; Cynthia Balion; Bruno J Salena; Deborah Yamamura; Leyla Soleymani; Matthew S Miller; John D Brennan; Yingfu Li
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  Propagation, Inactivation, and Safety Testing of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Alexander S Jureka; Jesus A Silvas; Christopher F Basler
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 5.048

9.  Preliminary Analysis of B- and T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Li-Xia Zhang; Shu-Yan Miao; Zhong-Hua Qin; Jun-Pin Wu; Huai-Yong Chen; Hai-Bai Sun; Yi Xie; Yan-Qing Du; Jun Shen
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.476

10.  Quantitative In-Vitro Diagnostic NMR Spectroscopy for Lipoprotein and Metabolite Measurements in Plasma and Serum: Recommendations for Analytical Artifact Minimization with Special Reference to COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 Samples.

Authors:  Ruey Leng Loo; Samantha Lodge; Torben Kimhofer; Sze-How Bong; Sofina Begum; Luke Whiley; Nicola Gray; John C Lindon; Philipp Nitschke; Nathan G Lawler; Hartmut Schäfer; Manfred Spraul; Toby Richards; Jeremy K Nicholson; Elaine Holmes
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 4.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.