Abstract
Background Autopsy studies have provided valuable insights into the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Controversies remain whether the clinical presentation is due to direct organ damage by SARS-CoV-2 or secondary effects, e.g. by an overshooting immune response. SARS-CoV-2 detection in tissues by RT-qPCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC) or electron microscopy (EM) can help answer these questions, but a comprehensive evaluation of these applications is missing.
Methods We assessed publications using IHC and EM for SARS-CoV-2 detection in autopsy tissues. We systematically evaluated commercially available antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid, dsRNA, and non-structural protein Nsp3 in cultured cell lines and COVID-19 autopsy tissues. In a multicenter study, we evaluated specificity, reproducibility, and inter-observer variability of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid staining. We correlated RT-qPCR viral tissue loads with semiquantitative IHC scoring. We used qualitative and quantitative EM analyses to refine criteria for ultrastructural identification of SARS-CoV-2.
Findings Publications show high variability in the detection and interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 abundance in autopsy tissues by IHC or EM. In our study, we show that IHC using antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid yields the highest sensitivity and specificity. We found a positive correlation between presence of viral proteins by IHC and RT-qPCR-determined SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA load (r=-0.83, p-value <0.0001). For EM, we refined criteria for virus identification and also provide recommendations for optimized sampling and analysis. 116 of 122 publications misinterpret cellular structures as virus using EM or show only insufficient data. We provide publicly accessible digitized EM and IHC sections as a reference and for training purposes.
Interpretation Since detection of SARS-CoV-2 in human autopsy tissues by IHC and EM is difficult and frequently incorrect, we propose criteria for a re-evaluation of available data and guidance for further investigations of direct organ effects by SARS-CoV-2.
Key messages
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 proteins by IHC in autopsy tissues is less sensitive in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-qPCR.
For determination of SARS-CoV-2 protein positive cells by IHC in autopsy tissues, detection of spike protein is less sensitive than nucleocapsid protein.
Correct identification of SARS-CoV-2 particles in human samples by EM is limited to the respiratory system.
Interpretation of IHC and EM should follow substantiated consensus criteria to enhance accuracy.
Existing datasets describing SARS-CoV-2 presence in human autopsy tissues need to be critically re-evaluated.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the German Registry of COVID-19 Autopsies (www.DeRegCOVID.ukaachen.de), funded Federal Ministry of Health (ZMVI1-2520COR201), by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the framework of the network of university medicine (DEFEAT PANDEMICs, 01KX2021). ACH was supported by Berlin University Alliance GC2 Global Health (Corona Virus Pre-Exploration Project), BMBF (RAPID and Organo-Strat 01KX2021) as well as DFG (SFB-TR 84, B6 / Z1a), HR by DFG (RA 2491/1-1), SB by DFG SFB 1365 C04, S01 and NIH 2R01DK05149-19A1, subaward 1016678, while SK was funded by the German Center for Infectious Research (TTU.01.929).
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:
Autopsies were performed at the Institute of Legal Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany and Institute of Pathology Charite Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, and Institute of Pathology and Electron Microscopy Facility, RWTH University of Aachen, Germany. Use of human tissue for post mortem studies after conclusion of diagnostic procedures has been reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the independent Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Chamber of Physicians (WF-051/20; protocol-no. PV7311) and by the local Ethics Committee (Berlin: EA2/066/20) and by the Charite-BIH COVID-19 research board, and by local Ethics Committee (Aachen: EK 304/20, EK 119/20, and EK 092/20), and the study is in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
↵# joint senior authors
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
