Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antibody Research Articles

Serological differentiation between COVID-19 and SARS infections

ABSTRACT In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by SARS-CoV-2, multiple diagnostic tests are required for acute disease diagnosis, contact tracing, monitoring asymptomatic infection rates and assessing herd immunity. While PCR remains the frontline test of choice in the acute diagnostic setting, serological tests are urgently needed. Unlike PCR tests which are highly specific, cross-reactivity is a major challenge for COVID-19 antibody tests considering there are six other coronaviruses known to infect humans. SARS-CoV is genetically related to SARS-CoV-2 sharing approximately 80% sequence identity and both belong to the species SARS related coronavirus in the genus Betacoronavirus of family Coronaviridae. We developed and compared the performance of four different serological tests to comprehensively assess the cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and SARS patient sera. There is significant cross-reactivity when N protein of either virus is used. The S1 or RBD regions from the spike (S) protein offers better specificity. Amongst the different platforms, capture ELISA performed best. We found that SARS survivors all have significant levels of antibodies remaining in their blood 17 years after infection. Anti-N antibodies waned more than anti-RBD antibodies, and the latter is known to play a more important role in providing protective immunity.

Orthogonal antibody testing for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in a non-epidemic place and time:Japan's Iwate Prefecture, May 18-31, 2020.

Of the 47 prefectures in Japan, Iwate had the fewest cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the first diagnosis officially confirmed on July 28, 2020. A baseline serological survey of COVID-19 antibodies is essential to accurately evaluate an epidemic outbreak. The primary purpose of this study was to determine pre-epidemic prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among healthcare workers, using two laboratory-based quantitative tests. In addition, a point-of-care (POC) qualitative test, rapid, simple, and convenient for primary care clinics, was compared with the laboratory-based tests. All antibody tests were performed on serum from 1,000 healthcare workers (mean age, 40 ± 11 years) in Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, May 29-31, 2020. A COVID-19 case was defined as showing positive results in both laboratory-based quantitative tests. None of 1,000 samples had positive results in both of the laboratory immunoassays. The POC test showed positive results in 33 of 1,000 samples (3.3%) (95% confidence interval: 2.19-4.41), but no samples were simultaneously positive in both laboratory-based tests. In conclusion, COVID-19 cases were not serologically confirmed by a baseline control study of healthcare workers at our hospital in late May, 2020. Moreover, the POC qualitative test may offer no advantage in areas with very low prevalence of COVID-19, due to higher false-positive reactions compared with laboratory-based quantitative immunoassays.

Low risk of serological cross-reactivity between dengue and COVID-19.

In the near future, the overlap of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and dengue epidemics is a concrete threat in tropical regions. Co-epidemics of COVID-19 and dengue could be an overwhelming challenge for health systems in low- and middle-income countries. In this work, we investigated potential serological cross-reactions between COVID-19 and dengue patients. Among 32 COVID-19 positive sera, no positive Dengue virus (DENV) IgG/IgM results were observed. On the other hand, one false-positive result was observed among 44 DENV-positive sera tested for COVID-19 antibodies with each of the two rapid tests used. Further data on accuracy of COVID-19 diagnostic test are urgently warranted.