Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection.

Autor: Gaeta A; Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Angeloni A; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy.. Electronic address: antonio.angeloni@uniroma1.it., Napoli A; Department of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Pucci B; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Cinti L; Department of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Roberto P; Department of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Colaiacovo F; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Berardelli E; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Farina A; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Antonelli G; Department of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy., Anastasi E; Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of immunological methods [J Immunol Methods] 2023 Jul; Vol. 518, pp. 113486. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 May 06.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2023.113486
Abstrakt: Background: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, required the development of different diagnostic tests. While reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) remains the first-line test of choice in acute infection diagnosis, anti-N antibodies serological assays provide a valuable tool to differentiate natural SARS-CoV-2 immunological response from that induced by vaccination, thus the goal of our study was to evaluate three serological tests agreement for these antibodies detection.
Methods: Three anti-N different tests were examined in 74 sera from patients referred or not COVID infection: immunochromatographic rapid test (Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device Abbott, Germany), ELISA kit (NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM NovaTech Immunodiagnostic GmbH, Germany) and ECLIA immunoassay (Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Roche Diagnostics, Manheim, Germany).
Results: Qualitative comparison of the three analytical methods revealed a moderate agreement between ECLIA immunoassay and immunochromatographic rapid test (Cohen kappa coefficient κ = 0.564). Correlation analysis indicated weak positive correlation between total Ig (IgT) detected by ECLIA immunoassay and IgG by ELISA test (p < 0.0001), the analysis of ECLIA IgT and IgM ELISA detected, showed no statistical correlation.
Conclusion: Comparison between of three analytical systems available for anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed a general agreement when compared to detect total and G class immunoglobulins, while doubtful or discordant results have been highlighted for IgT and IgM class. Anyway, all the tests examined provide reliable results to assess the serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
(Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: