Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tests and potential protective immunity
Kohmer, N.; Westhaus, S.; Ruehl, C.; Ciesek, S.; Rabenau, H. F.
Show abstract
As the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is little data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples and if detected IgG antibodies provide protective immunity. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG & Vircell COVID-19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay ((LFA) FaStep COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in-house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT)). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 samples were from individuals with moderate to severe clinical course, who required an in-patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5-9) and from 93.8 to 100% for the later period (days 10-18) after PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. With exception of one sample, all positive tested samples in the analysed cohort, using the commercially available assays examined (including the in-house developed IFA), demonstrated neutralizing (protective) properties in the PRNT, indicating a potential protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Regarding specificity, there was evidence that samples of endemic coronavirus (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) infected individuals cross-reacted in the ELISA assays and IFA, in one case generating a false positive result (may giving a false sense of security). This need to be further investigated.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Theory and Practice of the viral dose in neutralization assay: insights on SARS-CoV-2 "doublethink" effect. 97%
- Evaluation of two RT-PCR techniques for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum for microbiological diagnosis 97%
- Diagnostic comparison of three fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance estimation of two in-house ELISA assays for COVID-19 surveillance through the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulin isotypes 97%
- Development And Performance Evaluation of A Rapid In-House ELISA for Retrospective Serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- A multiplex serological assay for the characterization of IgG immune response to SARS-CoV-2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The usefulness of antigen testing in predicting contagiousness in COVID-19 96%
- A highly sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 spike- and nucleoprotein-based fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) to measure IgG, IgA and IgM class antibodies 96%
- Rapid semi-quantitative point of care diagnostic test for post vaccination antibody monitoring 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Value of Rapid Antigen Tests to Identify Carriers of Viable SARS-CoV-2 97%
- Serum SARS-CoV-2 Antigens for the Determination of COVID-19 Severity 96%
- Scalable, Micro-Neutralization Assay for Qualitative Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID 19) Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies in Human Clinical Samples 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Longitudinal detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses with different serological methods 97%
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 96%
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.