There is an urgent need for better immunoassays to measure antibody responses as part of immune-surveillance activities and to profile immunological responses to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We optimised and validated an in-house conventional ELISA to identify and quantify SARS-CoV-2 spike- (S-), receptor binding domain- (RBD-), and nucleoprotein- (N-) directed IgG, IgM, and IgA binding antibodies in the Ugandan population and similar settings. Pre- and post-pandemic specimens were used to compare the utility of mean ± 2SD, mean ± 3SD, 4-fold above blanks, bootstrapping, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses in determining optimal cut-off optical densities at 450 nm (OD) for discriminating between antibody positives and negatives. “Limits of detection” (LOD) and “limits of quantitation” (LOQ) were validated alongside the assay’s uniformity, accuracy, inter-assay and inter-operator precision, and parallelism. With spike-directed sensitivity and specificity of 95.33 and 94.15%, respectively, and nucleoprotein sensitivity and specificity of 82.69 and 79.71%, ROC was chosen as the best method for determining cutoffs. Accuracy measurements were within the expected CV range of 25%. Serum and plasma OD values were highly correlated (r = 0.93, p=0.0001). ROC-derived cut-offs for S-, RBD-, and N-directed IgG, IgM, and IgA were 0.432, 0.356, 0.201 (S), 0.214, 0.350, 0.303 (RBD), and 0.395, 0.229, 0.188 (N). The sensitivity and specificity of the S-IgG cut-off were equivalent to the WHO 20/B770-02 S-IgG reference standard at 100% level. Spike negative IgG, IgM, and IgA ODs corresponded to median antibody concentrations of 1.49, 3.16, and 0 BAU/mL, respectively, consistent with WHO low titre estimates. Anti-spike IgG, IgM, and IgA cut-offs were equivalent to 18.94, 20.06, and 55.08 BAU/mL. For the first time, we provide validated parameters and cut-off criteria for the in-house detection of subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine-elicited binding antibodies in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa and populations with comparable risk factors.

IntroductionUnderstanding how spike (S)-, nucleoprotein (N)-, and RBD-directed antibody responses evolved in mild and asymptomatic COVID-19 in Africa and their interactions with SARS-CoV-2 might inform development of targeted treatments and vaccines.MethodsHere, we used a validated indirect in-house ELISA to characterise development and persistence of S- and N-directed IgG, IgM, and IgA antibody responses for 2430 SARS-CoV-2 rt-PCR-diagnosed Ugandan specimens from 320 mild and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, 50 uninfected contacts, and 54 uninfected non-contacts collected weekly for one month, then monthly for 28 months.ResultsDuring acute infection, asymptomatic patients mounted a faster and more robust spike-directed IgG, IgM, and IgA response than those with mild symptoms (Wilcoxon rank test, p-values 0.046, 0.053, and 0.057); this was more pronounced in males than females. Spike IgG antibodies peaked between 25 and 37 days (86.46; IQR 29.47-242.56 BAU/ml), were significantly higher and more durable than N- and RBD IgG antibodies and lasted for 28 months. Anti-spike seroconversion rates consistently exceeded RBD and nucleoprotein rates. Spike- and RBD-directed IgG antibodies were positively correlated until 14 months (Spearman’s rank correlation test, p-values 0.0001 to 0.05), although RBD diminished faster. Significant anti-spike immunity persisted without RBD. 64% and 59% of PCR-negative, non-infected non-contacts and suspects, exhibited baseline SARS-CoV-2 N-IgM serological cross-reactivity, suggesting undetected exposure or abortive infection. N-IgG levels waned after 787 days, while N-IgM levels remained undetectable throughout.DiscussionLower N-IgG seroconversion rates and the absence of N-IgM indicate that these markers substantially underestimate the prior exposure rates. Our findings provide insights into the development of S-directed antibody responses in mild and asymptomatic infections, with varying degrees of symptoms eliciting distinct immune responses, suggesting distinct pathogenic pathways. These longer-lasting data inform vaccine design, boosting strategies, and surveillance efforts in this and comparable settings.

IntroductionWe investigated whether prior SARS-CoV-2-specific IFN-γ and antibody responses in Ugandan COVID-19 pre-pandemic specimens aligned to this population's low disease severity.MethodsWe used nucleoprotein (N), spike (S), NTD, RBD, envelope, membrane, SD1/2-directed IFN-γ ELISpots, and an S- and N-IgG antibody ELISA to screen for SARS-CoV-2-specific cross-reactivity.ResultsHCoV-OC43-, HCoV-229E-, and SARS-CoV-2-specific IFN-γ occurred in 23, 15, and 17 of 104 specimens, respectively. Cross-reactive IgG was more common against the nucleoprotein (7/110, 15.5%; p = 0.0016, Fishers' Exact) than the spike (3/110, 2.72%). Specimens lacking anti-HuCoV antibodies had higher rates of pre-epidemic SARS-CoV-2-specific IFN-γ cross-reactivity (p-value = 0.00001, Fishers’ exact test), suggesting that exposure to additional factors not examined here might play a role. SARS-CoV-2-specific cross-reactive antibodies were significantly less common in HIV-positive specimens (p=0.017; Fishers' Exact test). Correlations between SARS-CoV-2- and HuCoV-specific IFN-γ responses were consistently weak in both HIV negative and positive specimens.DiscussionThese findings support the existence of pre-epidemic SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular and humoral cross-reactivity in this population. The data do not establish that these virus-specific IFN-γ and antibody responses are entirely specific to SARS-CoV-2. Inability of the antibodies to neutralise SARS-CoV-2 implies that prior exposure did not result in immunity. Correlations between SARS-CoV-2 and HuCoV-specific responses were consistently weak, suggesting that additional variables likely contributed to the pre-epidemic cross-reactivity patterns. The data suggests that surveillance efforts based on the nucleoprotein might overestimate the exposure to SARS-CoV-2 compared to inclusion of additional targets, like the spike protein. This study, while limited in scope, suggests that HIV-positive people are less likely than HIV-negative people to produce protective antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.