One of the most widely used methods to detect an acute viral infection in clinical specimens is diagnostic real-time polymerase chain reaction. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, mass-spectrometry-based proteomics is currently being discussed as a potential diagnostic method for viral infections. Because proteomics is not yet applied in routine virus diagnostics, here we discuss its potential to detect viral infections. Apart from theoretical considerations, the current status and technical limitations are considered. Finally, the challenges that have to be overcome to establish proteomics in routine virus diagnostics are highlighted.

Background The reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 has become one of the most important contributions to COVID-19 crisis management. With the publication of the first sequences of SARS-CoV-2, several diagnostic PCR assays have been developed and published. In addition to in-house assays the market was flooded with numerous commercially available ready-to-use PCR kits, with both approaches showing alarming shortages in reagent supply. Aim Here we present a resource-efficient in-house protocol for the PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in patient specimens (RKI/ZBS1 SARS-CoV-2 protocol). Methods Two duplex one-step real-time RT-PCR assays are run simultaneously and provide information on two different SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions. Each one is duplexed with a control that either indicates potential PCR inhibition or proves the successful extraction of nucleic acid from the clinical specimen. Results Limit of RNA detection for both SARS-CoV-2 assays is below 10 genomes per reaction. The protocol enables testing specimens in duplicate across the two different SARS-CoV-2 PCR assays, saving reagents by increasing testing capacity. The protocol can be run on various PCR cyclers with several PCR master mix kits. Conclusion The presented RKI/ZBS1 SARS-CoV-2 protocol represents a cost-effective alternative in times of shortages when commercially available ready-to-use kits may not be available or affordable.

High-throughput detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 presents a valuable tool for vaccine trials or investigations of population immunity. We evaluate the performance of the first commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript Biotech) against SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) in convalescent and vaccinated individuals. We compare it to five other ELISAs, two of which are designed to detect neutralizing antibodies. In 491 pre-vaccination serum samples, sVNT missed 23.6% of PRNT-positive samples when using the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 30% binding inhibition. Introducing an equivocal area between 15 and 35% maximized sensitivity and specificity against PRNT to 72.8–93.1% and 73.5–97.6%, respectively. The overall diagnostic performance of the other ELISAs for neutralizing antibodies was below that of sVNT. Vaccinated individuals exhibited higher antibody titers by PRNT (median 119.8, IQR 56.7–160) and binding inhibition by sVNT (median 95.7, IQR 88.1–96.8) than convalescent patients (median 49.1, IQR 20–62; median 52.9, IQR 31.2–76.2). GenScript sVNT is suitable to screen for SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies; however, to obtain accurate results, confirmatory testing by PRNT in a equivocal area is required. This equivocal area may require adaptation for use in vaccinated individuals, due to higher antibody titers.

Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started in late 2019, the search for protective vaccines and for drug treatments has become mandatory to fight the global health emergency. Travel restrictions, social distancing, and face masks are suitable counter measures, but may not bring the pandemic under control because people will inadvertently or at a certain degree of restriction severity or duration become incompliant with the regulations. Even if vaccines are approved, the need for antiviral agents against SARS-CoV-2 will persist. However, unequivocal evidence for efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 has not been demonstrated for any of the repurposed antiviral drugs so far. Amantadine was approved as an antiviral drug against influenza A, and antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 has been reasoned by analogy but without data. We tested the efficacy of amantadine in vitro in Vero E6 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, amantadine inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in two separate experiments with IC50 concentrations between 83 and 119 µM. Although these IC50 concentrations are above therapeutic amantadine levels after systemic administration, topical administration by inhalation or intranasal instillation may result in sufficient amantadine concentration in the airway epithelium without high systemic exposure. However, further studies in other models are needed to prove this hypothesis.

Introduction The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach. Aim We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests. Methods While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 109 to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories. Results Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 106 genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 106 genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%. Conclusions Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals.