| Literature DB >> 35305688 |
Ji Luo1,2,3, Alexandra Brakel1,2, Andor Krizsan1,2, Tobias Ludwig1,2, Marina Mötzing1,2, Daniela Volke1,2, Nicole Lakowa4, Thomas Grünewald4, Claudia Lehmann5, Johannes Wolf6,7, Stephan Borte6,7, Sanja Milkovska-Stamenova1,2,3, Jörg Gabert3, Felix Fingas3, Markus Scholz8,9, Ralf Hoffmann10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections are important to understand the immune response in patients and to obtain epidemiological data about the number of infected people, especially to identify asymptomatic persons not aware of a past infection.Entities:
Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); Nucleocapsid protein (N-protein); Serological test; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35305688 PMCID: PMC8934124 DOI: 10.1186/s12985-022-01768-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virol J ISSN: 1743-422X Impact factor: 4.099
Fig. 1SDS-PAGE and corresponding immunoblots of the purified SARS-CoV-2 N-protein. a SDS-PAGE stained with Coomassie Brilliant blue (CBB) G-250 and b corresponding immunoblot probed with a negative serum pool (1: 10,000, Neg) and an anti-N-protein antibody (1: 50,000, anti-N) diluted in negative serum. The N-protein quantities loaded on the gel are indicated on top of each lane. M: marker proteins with the indicated molecular masses. N: N-protein
Performance characteristics of the in-house SARS-CoV-2 N-protein based ELISA
| PCR | Symptom onset | PCR + symptom onset | |
|---|---|---|---|
| [+] 0–6 da | 40.9% (20.7–63.7%) | 0% | 39.1% (19.7–61.5%) |
| [+] 7–13 db | 86.4% (65.1–97.1%) | – | 86.4% (65.1–97.1%) |
| [+] 14–55 dc | 100% (89.2–100%) | 79.4% (62.1–91.3%) | 89.7% (79.9–95.8%) |
| SARS–CoV–2 [–]d | – | – | 99.3% (98.8–99.68%) |
Confidence intervals (95%) are given in brackets. The median of days after symptom onset/PCR for the group [+] 14–55 d was 33 d
aSample cohort consisted of 23 RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections including one with documented symptom onset
bSample cohort consisted of 22 RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections
cSample cohort consisted of 68 RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections including 34 with documented symptom onsets
dSample cohort consisted of 1500 control sera collected before 2015
Fig. 2SARS-CoV-2 N-protein ELISA. In total 113 sera samples were collected from persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 and grouped based on the time period from symptom onset (blue) and for samples with unknown symptom onset by the date of a positive PCR test (black) until the blood sample was taken: 0–6 days (group 1, n = 23), 7–13 days (group 2, n = 22), and 14–55 days (group 3, n = 68, median: 33 d) as well as 1500 serum samples collected before 2015. Results were normalized by defining the positive control as 100% and negative control as 0% for each plate. The cut-off value was 30% and the grey zone below the cut-off ranging from 20 to 30% was considered as negative
Diagnostic specificity of the in-house N-protein based ELISA
| Sample group | Number | Negative | Borderline | Positive | Specificity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARS-CoV-2 [–] | 1500 | 1482 | 8 | 10 | 99.3 |
| COPD | 276 | 273 | 0 | 3 | 98.9 |
| Non-smokers | 684 | 676 | 5 | 3 | 99.6 |
| Light smokers | 457 | 451 | 2 | 4 | 99.1 |
| Heavy smokers | 359 | 355 | 1 | 3 | 99.2 |
| Male | 710 | 699 | 4 | 7 | 99.0 |
| Female | 789 | 782 | 4 | 3 | 99.6 |
| Normal weight | 495 | 489 | 4 | 2 | 99.6 |
| Pre-obesity | 550 | 543 | 4 | 3 | 99.5 |
| Obesity grade I | 238 | 237 | 0 | 1 | 99.6 |
| Obesity grade II | 116 | 113 | 0 | 3 | 97.4 |
| Obesity grade III | 100 | 99 | 0 | 1 | 99.0 |
Subgroups are partially overlapping. Specificity was calculated as (“Negative” + “Borderline”)/“Total number”
Fig. 3Serum samples incorrectly identified as negative and positive by the Euroimmun ELISA. a Among the 68 samples collected more than 14 days after symptom onset or a positive PCR test were seven samples missed (false-negative). b Ten samples detected as false-positive among 1500 samples collected before 2015 in our in-house N-protein ELISA (x-axis) were tested using the Euroimmun ELISA (y-axis). Borderline areas were 0.8–1.1 for the Euroimmun ELISA and 20–30% for the in-house ELISA, as indicated in grey
Fig. 4Comparison of Euroimmun (a) and in-house (b) N-protein based ELISA. Ten high, middle, and low positive sera collected 14 days after PCR confirmation and 33 random SARS-CoV-2 [-] serum samples were analyzed