Serum IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Level Is Strongly Associated With IgA and Functional Antibody Levels in Adults Infected With SARS-CoV-2.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
binding antibody
functional antibody
human serum
serology
Journal
Frontiers in immunology
ISSN: 1664-3224
Titre abrégé: Front Immunol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101560960
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
11
04
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
entrez:
25
10
2021
pubmed:
26
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and then rapidly spread causing an unprecedented pandemic. A robust serological assay is needed to evaluate vaccine candidates and better understand the epidemiology of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We used the full-length spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 for the development of qualitative and quantitative IgG and IgA anti-S enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). A total of 320 sera used for assay development were comprised of pandemic sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected adults (n=51) and pre-pandemic sera (n=269) including sera from endemic human coronavirus infected adults. Reverse cumulative curves and diagnostic test statistics were evaluated to define the optimal serum dilution and OD cutoff value for IgG anti-S and IgA anti-S ELISAs. The IgG and IgA anti-S, and three functional antibodies (ACE-2 receptor blocking antibody, lentipseudovirus-S neutralizing antibody, and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody) were measured using additional SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive sera (n=76) and surveillance sera (n=25). Lastly, the IgG and IgA anti-S levels were compared in different demographic groups. The optimal serum dilution for the qualitative IgG anti-S ELISA was at 1:1024 yielding a 99.6% specificity, 92.2% sensitivity, 92.9% positive predictive value (PPV), and 99.6% negative predictive value (NPV) at a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 5%. The optimal serum dilution for the qualitative IgA anti-S ELISA was at 1:128 yielding a 98.9% specificity, 76.5% sensitivity, 78.3% PPV, and 98.8% NPV at the same seroprevalence. Significant correlations were demonstrated between the IgG and IgA (r=0.833 for concentrations, r=0.840 for titers) as well as between IgG and three functional antibodies (r=0.811-0.924 for concentrations, r=0.795-0.917 for titers). The IgG and IgA anti-S levels were significantly higher in males than females (p<0.05), and in adults with moderate/severe symptoms than in adults with mild/moderate symptoms (p<0.001). We developed a highly specific and sensitive IgG anti-S ELISA assay to SARS-CoV-2 using full length S protein. The IgG anti-S antibody level was strongly associated with IgA and functional antibody levels in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Gender and disease severity, rather than age, play an important role in antibody levels.
Sections du résumé
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and then rapidly spread causing an unprecedented pandemic. A robust serological assay is needed to evaluate vaccine candidates and better understand the epidemiology of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Methods
We used the full-length spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 for the development of qualitative and quantitative IgG and IgA anti-S enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). A total of 320 sera used for assay development were comprised of pandemic sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected adults (n=51) and pre-pandemic sera (n=269) including sera from endemic human coronavirus infected adults. Reverse cumulative curves and diagnostic test statistics were evaluated to define the optimal serum dilution and OD cutoff value for IgG anti-S and IgA anti-S ELISAs. The IgG and IgA anti-S, and three functional antibodies (ACE-2 receptor blocking antibody, lentipseudovirus-S neutralizing antibody, and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody) were measured using additional SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive sera (n=76) and surveillance sera (n=25). Lastly, the IgG and IgA anti-S levels were compared in different demographic groups.
Results
The optimal serum dilution for the qualitative IgG anti-S ELISA was at 1:1024 yielding a 99.6% specificity, 92.2% sensitivity, 92.9% positive predictive value (PPV), and 99.6% negative predictive value (NPV) at a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 5%. The optimal serum dilution for the qualitative IgA anti-S ELISA was at 1:128 yielding a 98.9% specificity, 76.5% sensitivity, 78.3% PPV, and 98.8% NPV at the same seroprevalence. Significant correlations were demonstrated between the IgG and IgA (r=0.833 for concentrations, r=0.840 for titers) as well as between IgG and three functional antibodies (r=0.811-0.924 for concentrations, r=0.795-0.917 for titers). The IgG and IgA anti-S levels were significantly higher in males than females (p<0.05), and in adults with moderate/severe symptoms than in adults with mild/moderate symptoms (p<0.001).
Conclusion
We developed a highly specific and sensitive IgG anti-S ELISA assay to SARS-CoV-2 using full length S protein. The IgG anti-S antibody level was strongly associated with IgA and functional antibody levels in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Gender and disease severity, rather than age, play an important role in antibody levels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34691016
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.693462
pmc: PMC8531527
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin A
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
693462Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI161943
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R25 GM056929
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R25 GM069234
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Ye, Angelo, Nicholson, Iwuchukwu, Cabral de Rezende, Rajan, Aideyan, McBride, Bond, Santarcangelo, Rayford, Ferlic-Stark, Fragoso, Momin, Liu, Truong, Lopez, Conner, Rice, Kimata, Avadhanula and Piedra.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32513859
Heliyon. 2020 May;6(5):e04063
pubmed: 32462098
J Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 13;222(12):1974-1984
pubmed: 32910175
Immunol Invest. 2020 Sep 18;:1-13
pubmed: 32945214
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):562-569
pubmed: 32094589
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 17;9(7):
pubmed: 32708872
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104512
pubmed: 32563180
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):2050-2054
pubmed: 32383183
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2255-2258
pubmed: 32337590
J Clin Virol. 2020 Sep;130:104542
pubmed: 32707511
J Clin Virol. 2018 Apr;101:52-56
pubmed: 29427907
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104511
pubmed: 32593133
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
J Virol. 1995 Nov;69(11):6705-11
pubmed: 7474080
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1033-1036
pubmed: 32398876
Sci Immunol. 2020 Jun 11;5(48):
pubmed: 32527802
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1200-1204
pubmed: 32555424
Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):450-452
pubmed: 32284615
Metabolism. 2020 Jul;108:154262
pubmed: 32422233
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Feb;36(2):539-42
pubmed: 9466772
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32350047
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):450-460
pubmed: 33231628
Virology. 1995 Feb 1;206(2):935-44
pubmed: 7531918
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 15;17(24):
pubmed: 33334073
J Virol. 2020 Mar 17;94(7):
pubmed: 31996437
Sci Transl Med. 2020 Oct 7;12(564):
pubmed: 32958614
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):536-544
pubmed: 32123347
J Clin Invest. 2020 Nov 2;130(11):6141-6150
pubmed: 32764200
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104480
pubmed: 32505777
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32229605
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):565-574
pubmed: 32213337
Virology. 2020 Dec;551:26-35
pubmed: 33011520
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020 Oct 13;5(1):237
pubmed: 33051445
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):271-280.e8
pubmed: 32142651
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 9;15(10):e0240502
pubmed: 33035234