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.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
08
06
2022
accepted:
07
12
2022
entrez:
6
2
2023
pubmed:
7
2
2023
medline:
9
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The main objective of this study was to estimate the performance, under local epidemiological conditions, of two in-house ELISA assays for the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulins. A total of 94 serum samples were used for the assessment, where 44 corresponded to sera collected before the pandemic (free of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies), and 50 sera were collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the main public hospital in the city of Valdivia, southern Chile. The Nucleocapsid (Np) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) proteins were separately used as antigens (Np and RBD ELISA, respectively) to assess their diagnostic performance. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the optical density (OD) cut-off that maximized the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the ELISA assays. Np ELISA had a mean Se of 94% (95% CI = 83.5-98.8%) and a mean Sp of 100% (95% CI = 92.0-100%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut-off value of 0.88. On the other hand, RBD ELISA presented a mean Se of 96% (95% CI = 86.3-99.5%) and a mean Sp of 90% (95% CI = 78.3-97.5%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut off value of 0.996. Non-significant differences were observed between the Se distributions of Np and RBD ELISAs, but the latter presented a significant lower Sp than Np ELISA. In parallel, collected sera were also analyzed using a commercial lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay (LFCI), to compare the performance of the in-house ELISA assays against a commercial test. The LFCI had a mean sensitivity of 94% (95% CI = 87.4-100%) and a mean specificity of 100% (95% CI = 100-100%). When compared to Np ELISA, non-significant differences were observed on the performance distributions. Conversely, RBD ELISA had a significant lower Sp than the LFCI. Although, Np ELISA presented a similar performance to the commercial test, this was 2.5 times cheaper than the LFCI assay (labor cost not considered). Thus, the in-house Np ELISA could be a suitable alternative tool, in resource limited environments, for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting further epidemiological studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36745590
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270388
pii: PONE-D-22-16590
pmc: PMC9901778
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunoglobulin A
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Immunoglobulin M
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0270388Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Ramírez-Reveco et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;36:100401
pubmed: 33509436
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(18):
pubmed: 32400364
Sci Transl Med. 2021 Aug 4;13(605):
pubmed: 34257144
J Virol Methods. 2021 Feb;288:114025
pubmed: 33227340
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1081-1088
pubmed: 32301749
Allergy. 2020 Jul;75(7):1564-1581
pubmed: 32396996
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 5;71(8):1930-1934
pubmed: 32306047
J Infect Public Health. 2020 Nov;13(11):1630-1638
pubmed: 32855090
J Med Virol. 2021 Mar;93(3):1436-1442
pubmed: 32790181
Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 Aug 5;154(3):293-304
pubmed: 32583852
J Med Virol. 2021 Apr;93(4):1888-1889
pubmed: 33289143
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Lancet. 2004 Mar 13;363(9412):841-5
pubmed: 15031027
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):382-385
pubmed: 32065055
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32398307
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jun 6;20(1):146
pubmed: 32505172
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1033-1036
pubmed: 32398876
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Mar;92:107330
pubmed: 33412393
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):778-785
pubmed: 32198501
Sci Transl Med. 2021 Jan 20;13(577):
pubmed: 33288662
Cell Mol Immunol. 2020 Jul;17(7):773-775
pubmed: 32467617
medRxiv. 2020 Apr 24;:
pubmed: 32511445
Virus Res. 2014 Dec 19;194:175-83
pubmed: 24670324
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Jan 22;15(1):e0009070
pubmed: 33481804
Isr Med Assoc J. 2020 Apr;22(4):203-210
pubmed: 32286019
BMJ. 2020 Jul 1;370:m2516
pubmed: 32611558
Viruses. 2021 Apr 16;13(4):
pubmed: 33923828
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1478-1488
pubmed: 32267220