Comparison of two commercial surrogate ELISAs to detect a neutralising antibody response to SARS-CoV-2.
Antibodies
COVID-19
ELISA
Neutralising
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
Journal of virological methods
ISSN: 1879-0984
Titre abrégé: J Virol Methods
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8005839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
13
12
2020
revised:
14
02
2021
accepted:
02
03
2021
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
6
5
2021
entrez:
11
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reliable methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies (NAbs) are essential for the evaluation of vaccine candidates and for the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Virus neutralisation tests (NTs) are the gold standard for the detection and quantification of NAbs, but they are complex and require BSL3 facilities. In contrast, surrogate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (sELISA) offer the possibility of high-throughput testing under standard laboratory safety conditions. In this study, we investigated two commercial sELISA kits (GenScript, AdipoGen) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 NAbs. 276 plasma samples were screened using commercial IgG-ELISA and NAbs titres were determined by micro-neutralisation test (micro-NT). In addition, all samples were tested in both sELISA. Sensitivity and specificity for both sELISA were determined in comparison to the micro-NT results. 57 % of the samples were SARS-CoV-2 NAb positive in micro-NT, while 43 % tested negative. Comparison with micro-NT results showed a sensitivity of 98.2 % and a specificity of 69.5 % for the GenScript ELISA. The AdipoGen ELISA had a sensitivity of 83.5 % and a specificity of 97.8 %. False negative results were obtained mainly on samples with low NAbs titres. Both sELISA were able to qualitatively detect NAbs in plasma samples. Sensitivity and specificity differed between sELISA with GenScript superior in sensitivity and AdipoGen superior in specificity. Both sELISA were unable to quantify NAbs, thus neither of them can completely replace conventional NTs. However, in a two-step diagnostic algorithm, AdipoGen could potentially replace NT as a subsequent confirmatory test due to its high specificity but only in settings where no exact NAbs quantification is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33705832
pii: S0166-0934(21)00061-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114122
pmc: PMC7938787
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Neutralizing
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114122Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207
pubmed: 31995857
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(18):
pubmed: 32400364
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Aug 27;58(12):2121-2130
pubmed: 32853163
Nat Commun. 2020 Aug 13;11(1):4059
pubmed: 32792628
Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7830):516-527
pubmed: 32967006
J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 13;222(10):1620-1628
pubmed: 32779705
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):2394-2403
pubmed: 33043818
Biosaf Health. 2020 Dec;2(4):226-231
pubmed: 32864605
Lung. 2020 Dec;198(6):867-877
pubmed: 33170317
Cell Host Microbe. 2020 May 13;27(5):695-698
pubmed: 32407707
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 6;11(1):3436
pubmed: 32632160
PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24135
pubmed: 21915289
Internist (Berl). 2020 Aug;61(8):789-792
pubmed: 32705298
Trends Immunol. 2020 May;41(5):355-359
pubmed: 32249063
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Sep;38(9):1073-1078
pubmed: 32704169
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Aug 1;728:138861
pubmed: 32344226
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 29;383(18):1757-1766
pubmed: 32329974
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):680-686
pubmed: 32207377
Lancet. 2020 Apr 4;395(10230):1101-1102
pubmed: 32247384
Transfus Med. 2021 Jun;31(3):167-175
pubmed: 33333627
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1478-1488
pubmed: 32267220