ABSTRACT
More than 300 SARS-COV-2 serological tests have recently been developed using either the nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (N), the spike glycoprotein subunit (S1), and more recently the receptor binding domain (RBD). Most of the assays report very good clinical performance characteristics in well-controlled clinical settings. However, there is a growing belief that good performance characteristics that are obtained during clinical performance trials might not be sufficient to deliver good diagnostic results in population-wide screens that are usually characterized with low seroprevalence. In this paper, we developed a serological assay against N, S1 and RBD using a bead-based multiplex platform and a rules-based computational approach to assess the performance of single and multi-antigen readouts in well-defined clinical samples and in a population-wide serosurvey from blood donors. Even though assays based on single antigen readouts performed similarly well in the clinical samples, there was a striking difference between the antigens on the population-wide screen. Asymptomatic individuals with low antibody titers and sub-optimal assay specificity might contribute to the large discrepancies in population studies with low seroprevalence. A multi-antigen assay requiring partial agreement between RBD, N and S1 readouts exhibited enhanced specificity, less dependency on assay cut-off values and an overall more robust performance in both sample settings. Our data suggest that assays based on multiple antigen readouts combined with a rules-based computational consensus can provide a more robust platform for routine antibody screening.
One Sentence Summary Clinical and Population-level performance of single and multiplex SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.
Competing Interest Statement
LGA, NT, AM VP, are members of ProtATonce Ltd. All other authors declare no competing interests related to this article.
Funding Statement
FUNDING: Does not apply.
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:
Sampling from SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals was done with informed consent and under approved institutional and ethic review board approved clinical protocols conducted in full compliance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki (University Hospital of Patras EC 164/27.04.2020 and IRB 216/08.05.2020, Alexandra General Hospital NCT04408209 trial). Stored negative samples were acquired in accordance with local ethical approvals. The population-level study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Patras (Ref. Number 6099) and all participants gave written informed consent.
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
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
