Back

A simple, sensitive and quantitative FACS-based test for SARS-CoV-2 serology in humans and animals

Maurel Ribes, A.; Bessiere, P.; Guery, J.-C.; Joly Featherstone, E.; Bruel, T.; Robinot, R.; Schwartz, O.; Abravanel, F.; Izopet, J.; Joly, E.

2021-09-13 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.09.06.21262027 medRxiv
Show abstract

Serological tests are important for understanding the physiopathology and following the evolution of the Covid-19 pandemic. Assays based on flow cytometry (FACS) of tissue culture cells expressing the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 have repeatedly proven to perform slightly better than the plate-based assays ELISA and CLIA (chemiluminescent immuno-assay), and markedly better than lateral flow immuno-assays (LFIA). Here, we describe an optimized and very simple FACS assay based on staining a mix of two Jurkat cell lines, expressing either high levels of the S protein (Jurkat-S) or a fluorescent protein (Jurkat-R expressing m-Cherry, or Jurkat-G, expressing GFP, which serve as an internal negative control). We show that the Jurkat-S&R-flow test has a much broader dynamic range than a commercial ELISA test and performs at least as well in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Also, it is more sensitive and quantitative than the hemagglutination-based test HAT, which we described recently. The Jurkat-flow test requires only a few microliters of blood; thus, it can be used to quantify various Ig isotypes in capillary blood collected from a finger prick. It can be used also to evaluate serological responses in mice, hamsters, cats and dogs. Whilst the Jurkat-flow test is ill-suited and not intended for clinical use, it offers a very attractive solution for laboratories with access to tissue culture and flow cytometry who want to monitor serological responses in humans or in animals, and how these relate to susceptibility to infection, or re-infection, by the virus, and to protection against Covid-19. NoteThis manuscript has been refereed by Review Commons, and modified thanks to the comments and suggestions from two referees. Those comments, and our replies, are provided at the end of the manuscripts pdf, and can also be accessed by clicking on the box with a little green number found just above the "Abstract " tab in the medRXiv window.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
15.3%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.0%
4
Journal of Virological Methods
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
Viruses
332 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.2%
7
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.8%
8
Pathogens
56 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
9
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Journal of Medical Virology
140 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
109 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
12
Vaccines
198 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.5%
14
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
15
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
129 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
European Journal of Immunology
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Microorganisms
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
22
Transfusion
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.9%
24
Eurosurveillance
83 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
25
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%