No abstract

Serological tests for detection of anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Abs in blood are expected to identify individuals who have acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and indication of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many serological tests have been developed to detect Abs against SARS-CoV-2. However, these tests have considerable variations in their specificity and sensitivity, and whether they can predict levels of neutralizing activity is yet to be determined. This study aimed to investigate the kinetics and neutralizing activity of various Ag-specific Ab isotypes against SARS-CoV-2 in serum of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients confirmed via PCR test. We developed IgG, IgM, and IgA measurement assays for each Ag, including receptor-binding domain (RBD) of spike (S) protein, S1 domain, full-length S protein, S trimer, and nucleocapsid (N) domain, based on ELISA. The assays of the S protein for all isotypes showed high specificity, whereas the assays for all isotypes against N protein showed lower specificity. The sensitivity of all Ag-specific Ab isotypes depended on the timing of the serum collection and all of them, except for IgM against N protein, reached more than 90% at 15–21 d postsymptom onset. The best correlation with virus-neutralizing activity was found for IgG against RBD, and levels of IgG against RBD in sera from four patients with severe COVID-19 increased concordantly with neutralizing activity. Our results provide valuable information regarding the selection of serological test for seroprevalence and vaccine evaluation studies.

Background Several immunochromatographic serological test kits have been developed to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, but their relative performance and potential clinical utility is unclear. Methods Three commercially available serological test kits were evaluated using 99 serum samples collected from 29 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 100 serum samples collected from 100 healthy volunteers in 2017 as negative controls. Results The specificity of the IgM and IgG antibodies showed comparable results among the three immunochromatographic serological test kits. The specificity for IgM antibody was 98.0%, 98.0%, and 97.0%, and the specificity for IgG antibody was identical among the three kits (99.0%). The IgM antibody-positive rates of the three test kits for samples taken at the early stage of the disease (0–4 days after onset) were consistent with all three kits (18.2%); however, the IgM antibody-positive rates thereafter showed considerable differences among the kits, making it difficult to interpret the kinetics of IgM response against SARS-CoV-2. The IgG antibody-positive rates for samples taken after 13 days of onset were 100.0%, 97.6%, and 97.6%, respectively. Conclusion There were large differences among the results of the three test kits. Only few cases showed positive results for IgM, suggesting that at least 2 of these kits used in this study were unsuitable for diagnosis of COVID-19. The IgG antibody was positive in almost all samples after 13 days of onset, suggesting that it may be useful for determining infections in the recent past.

Background: Several immunochromatographic serological test kits have been developed to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) specific antibodies, but their relative performance and potential clinical utility is unclear. Methods: Three commercially available serological test kits were evaluated using 99 serum samples collected from 29 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Results: The IgM antibody-positive rates of the three serological test kits for samples taken at the early stage of the disease (0-6 days after onset) were 19.0%, 23.8%, and 19.0%, respectively. The IgM antibody-positive rates over the entire period were 21.2%, 60.6%, and 15.2%, respectively. The IgG antibody-positive rates for samples taken after 13 days of onset were 100.0%, 97.6%, and 97.6%, respectively. Conclusion: There were large differences among the results of the three test kits. Only few cases showed positive results for IgM in the early stage of disease and the IgM antibody-positive rates over the entire period were low, suggesting that the kits used in this study were unsuitable for diagnosis of COVID-19. The IgG antibody was positive in almost all samples after 13 days of onset, suggesting that it may be useful for determining infections in the recent past.