Abstract
Background Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies provides important research and diagnostic information relating to COVID-19 prevalence, incidence, and host immune response. A greater understanding of the relationship between functionally neutralising antibodies detected using microneutralisation assays and binding antibodies detected using scalable enzyme immunoassays (EIA) is needed in order to address protective immunity post-infection or vaccination, and assess EIA suitability as a surrogate test for screening of convalescent plasma donors. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with signal cut-off ratios in five commercially available EIAs, and one in-house assay based on expressed spike protein targets.
Methods Sera from individuals recovered from patients or convalescent plasma donors who reported laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=200), and negative control sera collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (n=100) were assessed in parallel. Performance was assessed by calculating EIA sensitivity and specificity with reference to microneutralisation.
Results Neutralising antibodies were detected in 166 (83%) samples. Compared with this, the most sensitive EIAs were the Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (98%) and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%), which detect total antibody targeting the N and S1 antigens, respectively. The assay with the best quantitative relationship with microneutralisation was the Euroimmun IgG.
Conclusions These results suggest the marker used (total Ab vs IgG vs IgA), and the target antigen are important determinants of assay performance. The strong correlation between microneutralisation and some commercially available assays demonstrate their potential for clinical and research use in assessing protection following infection or vaccination, and use as a surrogate test to assess donor suitability for convalescent plasma donation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No specific funding was provided for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval to compare and validate antibody SARS-CoV-2 assays as part of a larger project to collect, manufacture and supply convalescent plasma to patients enrolled in clinical trials and for COVID-19 Immunoglobulin was approved by the Lifeblood Ethics Committee (approval number Hoad 30042020).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Alternate contact: Gregory Walker, Virology Research Laboratory, Level 3 Clinical Sciences Building, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick 2031, Australia. Email: gregory.walker{at}unsw.edu.au Ph: +61 2 93829096
Data Availability
Data related to this manuscript will be available to anyone immediately following peer-reviewed publication through contacting the corresponding author by email. These data include assay results for deidentified participant samples.
