Serological detection of 2019-nCoV respond to the epidemic: A useful complement to nucleic acid testing

Zhang, Jin; Zhang, Xiaoming; Liu, Jianhua; Ban, Yuan; Li, Na; Wu, Yue; Liu, Yong; Rui, Yong; Liu, Jinyang; Li, Xinghai; Li, Luping; Qin, Xiaosong; Zheng, Rui

doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106861

Cited by 49 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, IgG and IgM did not seem to behave differently based on the number of days elapsing from symptom appearance, but they clearly and progressively increased along the course of the disease. This unexpected finding, in contrast with common knowledge concerning the kinetics of the two immunoglobulins, is supported by the results presented by Zhang et al [ 16 ] and Lou et al [ 17 ]. Both authors reported that the detectable serology markers, IgG and IgM, had similar seroconversions in COVID-19 patients, with antibody levels increasing rapidly at 6 days after exposure, and this trend occurred with a concomitant decline in viral load.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study

Paradiso¹,

Summa²,

Loconsole³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for the identification of viral nucleic acid is the current standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but technical issues limit its utilization for large-scale screening. Serological immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG testing has been proposed as a useful tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Objective The objective of our study was to compare the results of the rapid serological VivaDiag test for SARS-CoV-2–related IgM/IgG detection with those of the standard RT-PCR laboratory test for identifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid. Methods We simultaneously performed both serological and molecular tests with a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients. The results provided by a new rapid serological colorimetric test for analyzing IgM/IgG expression were compared with those of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Results Of the 191 subjects, 70 (36.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR results, while 34 (17.3%) tested positive based on serological IgM/IgG expression. Additionally, 13 (6.8%) subjects tested positive based on serological test results, but also tested negative based on RT-PCR results. The rapid serological test had a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% compared to the standard RT-PCR assay. Interestingly, the performance of both assays improved 8 days after symptom appearance. After 10 days had passed since symptom appearance, the predictive value of the rapid serological test was higher than that of the standard molecular assay (proportion of positive results: 40% vs 20%). Multivariate analysis showed that age >58 years (P<.01) and period of >15 days after symptom onset (P<.02) were significant and independent factors associated with serological test positivity. Conclusions The rapid serological test analyzed in this study seems limited in terms of usefulness when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it may be useful for providing relevant information on people’s immunoreaction to COVID-19 exposure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study

Paradiso¹,

Summa²,

Loconsole³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overall specificity of IgM and IgG with non-COVID-19 suspected cases, other diseases, medical staff and healthy controls was found to be 97%. 11 Interestingly, Zeng et al 26 have shown comparatively higher IgG antibody in females during the early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection which tended to be elevated in severe cases in comparison to males. A case-control retrospective study suggested maximum IgM level in the 4th week of disease onset and higher in severely diseased patients in comparison to COVID-19 patients with mild and moderate disease.…”

Section: Antibody Dynamicity Through Cliamentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Moreover, in many cases molecular testing often requires more than one test for disease confirmation. 11 RT-PCR is valuable in the initial phase of infection when the virus is present in the body. However, this method has limitation in identifying past, recovered and asymptomatic infections.…”

Section: Brief Introduction Of the Current Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has not only commenced a global health emergency but also agitated various aspects of humanity. During this period of crisis, researchers over the world have ramped their efforts to constrain the disease in all possible ways, whether it is vaccination, therapy or diagnosis. Because the spread of the disease has not yet elapsed, sharing the ongoing research findings could be the key to disease control and management. An early and efficient diagnosis could leverage the outcome until a successful vaccine is developed. Both in‐house and commercial kits are the preferred molecular tests being used worldwide in the COVID‐19 diagnosis. However, the limitation of high prices and lengthy procedures impede their use for mass testing. Keeping the constant rise of infection in mind, the search for an alternative test that is cost‐effective, simple and suitable for large‐scale testing and surveillance is the need of the hour. One such alternative could be immunological tests. In the last few months, a deluge of immunological rapid tests have been developed and validated across the globe. The objective of this review is to share the diagnostic performance of various immunological assays reported so far in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 case detection. We consolidate the studies (published and preprints) related to serological tests such as chemiluminescence, enzyme‐linked and lateral flow‐based point‐of‐care tests in COVID‐19 diagnosis and update the current scenario. This review aims to be an add‐on in COVID‐19 research and will contribute to congregation of the evidence for decision making.

show abstract

“…Immunoglobulin G, M, and A (IgG, IgM, and IgA) are being used as potential markers for COVID-19. IgM is shown to be an indicator of early-stage infection, while higher IgG levels are observed during late stages or post-recovery [124][125][126][127][128]. COVID-19 antibody can be detected based on existing methods (Table 3) such as colloidal gold-based immunochromatographic assay (GICA) [129][130][131][132], magnetic chemiluminescence enzyme Amplicon-based target sequencing using Nanopore sequencer to detect SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory organisms in clinical samples [85,88] Target (amplicon-based and hybridization-based capture) sequencing using BGI sequencer to detect SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory organisms in clinical samples [89] Direct RNA sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 (from clinical specimens grown in cell culture) using Nanopore sequencer [86,87] Proposed scaled testing protocol using RT primers to barcode up to 19,200 patient samples in a single sequencing run [93] Outbreak surveillance…”

Section: Antibody-based Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a review of molecular diagnostic tools including sample collection and commercial response with associated advantages and limitations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unprecedented global pandemic known as SARS-CoV-2 has exercised to its limits nearly all aspects of modern viral diagnostics. In doing so, it has illuminated both the advantages and limitations of current technologies. Tremendous effort has been put forth to expand our capacity to diagnose this deadly virus. In this work, we put forth key observations in the functionality of current methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing. These methods include nucleic acid amplification-, CRISPR-, sequencing-, antigen-, and antibody-based detection methods. Additionally, we include analysis of equally critical aspects of COVID-19 diagnostics, including sample collection and preparation, testing models, and commercial response. We emphasize the integrated nature of assays, wherein issues in sample collection and preparation could impact the overall performance in a clinical setting.

show abstract

Serological detection of 2019-nCoV respond to the epidemic: A useful complement to nucleic acid testing

Abstract: Highlights We observed the characteristics of specific antibody production of COVID-19 patients. For the first time, we studied the specific antibody levels of different populations. Detecting specific antibodies is a complementary approach to diagnose COVID-19.

Cited by 49 publications

References 6 publications

Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study

Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a review of molecular diagnostic tools including sample collection and commercial response with associated advantages and limitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About