Suppr超能文献

基于核衣壳蛋白和刺突蛋白的 SARS-CoV-2 血清学检测方法的性能。

Performance of nucleocapsid and spike-based SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays.

机构信息

Division of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Division of Vaccine Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 2;15(11):e0237828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237828. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.

摘要

目前迫切需要一种针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 的准确抗体检测方法。我们开发了 3 种 ELISA 方法,三聚体刺突 IgA、三聚体刺突 IgG 和核衣壳 IgG,用于检测抗 SARS-CoV-2 抗体。我们评估了它们的性能以及四种商业 ELISA 的性能,包括 EDI ™新型冠状病毒 COVID-19 ELISA IgG 和 IgM、Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG 和 IgA 以及一种侧向流动检测试剂盒 DPP ® COVID-19 IgM/IgG 系统 (Chembio)。评估了敏感性和特异性,并确定了假阳性反应的可能原因。使用 300 份流行前样本和 100 份 PCR 确诊的 COVID-19 样本评估了检测方法。检测方法的敏感性和特异性如下:90%/100%(内部三聚体刺突 IgA)、90%/99.3%(内部三聚体刺突 IgG)、89%/98.3%(内部核衣壳 IgG)、73.7%/100%(EDI 核衣壳 IgM)、84.5%/95.1%(EDI 核衣壳 IgG)、95%/93.7%(Euroimmun S1 IgA)、82.8%/99.7%(Euroimmun S1 IgG)、82.0%/91.7%(Chembio 核衣壳 IgM)、92%/93.3%(Chembio 核衣壳 IgG)。商业和内部检测方法中流行前样本假阳性结果的推测原因各不相同。在某些情况下,检测方法缺乏重现性。在其他情况下,竞争抑制会使反应性丧失(在进行检测之前,用用于包被 ELISA 的相同抗原对样本进行加标),表明阳性反应可能归因于存在针对这些抗原的抗体。在其他情况下,反应性始终被检测到,但不会因加标而丧失,表明阳性反应不是归因于存在针对这些抗原的抗体。总体而言,使用我们的样本时,检测方法的性能存在很大差异,内部检测方法表现出最高的综合敏感性和特异性。流行前样本中“假阳性”的原因可能是血浆抗体显然与相应抗原反应,或者假性反应可能针对检测系统中的非特异性成分。鉴定这些靶点对于提高检测性能至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a919/7605638/3ec6bc9e00ed/pone.0237828.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验