Assessing and improving the validity of COVID-19 autopsy studies - a multicenter approach to establish essential standards for immunohistochemical and ultrastructural analyses

Sample processing for immunohistochemistry

We generated paraffin cell blocks from SARS-CoV-2-infected and un-infected Vero cells (see Supplementary Methods for details) and processed these as if they were autopsy samples regarding fixation time in 10% formalin and paraffin embedding. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2-infected and un-infected Vero cells were grown on coverslips and fixed in 4% formaldehyde solution. Autopsy samples from lungs and respiratory mucosa from COVID-19 patients and controls were formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) using standard laboratory procedures from three study centers. Beside hematoxylin and eosin staining, immunohistochemistry with several antibodies against different SARS-CoV-2 proteins (see Supplementary Table 2) were performed using a Ventana Benchmark XT autostainer at two centers. For the multicenter study evaluating IHC to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid, we used antibody N#9. Staining specificity and intensity were evaluated by eight independent pathologists/neuropathologists at four different centers (Pathology Aachen, Neuropathology Berlin, Neuropathology Hamburg, Pathology Paris). Observers received instructions and a set of stained slides and were then asked to categorize each slide in a blinded fashion, using a published four-tiered semiquantitative approach (none (0), slight (+), moderate (++), and severe (+++) ²⁵ (Figure 3). Training slides were annotated, uploaded, and are publicly available using OMERO ²⁶. Correlation of RT-qPCR (Pearson r) values and scoring was analyzed using Graphpad Prism (GraphPad Software Version 8, La Jolla, USA) with 34 pairs. Every case was rated by seven investigators. Cases with ≥70% agreement amongst raters (at least 5 from 7 raters) were classified as positive (“+” or more) or negative, respectively. Cases with unclear classification into positive or negative due to inconsistent ratings (less than 60% agreement) were defined as non-classifiable (n=2; one control / one COVID-19). Sensitivity was calculated as Sensitivity = True positive/True positive + False negative. Specificity was calculated as Specificity = True negative/True negative + False positive (see Supplementary Table 5).

Sample processing for electron microscopy

29 autopsy samples derived from different tissues of 16 patients and SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells were processed according to standard protocols (Supplementary Methods; Supplementary Table 6). For qualitative and quantitative analyses of infected cells and viral particles, autopsy lung tissue (Supplementary Table 6, case 1) and FFPE re-embedded olfactory mucosa (case 2) with a high viral RNA load, as determined by RT-qPCR, and successful detection of particles by EM were used.

Large-scale electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy

Four large sections prepared from different resin blocks of two autopsy lung samples (case 1) and two sections prepared from different resin blocks from SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells were completely digitized at 3-4 nm pixel size as recently described ²⁷ to screen for SARS-CoV-2 particles (Supplementary Material). The screening datasets were processed via Fiji software/TrakEM2 plugin ²⁸ and nip2 software to generate high-resolution tif files ²⁷ for in-depth analysis using QuPath software 0.2.0. ²⁹. In the autopsy lung, in total, 15 infected cells were detected, all located within two of the four digitized sections (dataset 1 and 2 on www.nanotomy.org). Subsequently, the infected cells were annotated and digitized at 1 nm pixel size for quantitative analysis in QuPath. Selected regions showing extracellular particles and non-infected cells were also digitized. To assess the heterogeneity of coronavirus (CoV) particles and their distribution in infected cells, four different categories of particles were specified; dark type 1 particles, bright type 2 particles, deformed type 3 particles, and extracellular type 4 particles (Figure 5D-S). These types were counted manually in QuPath. Also, total area (in μm²) of infected cells, area of the nucleus, and area of luminal structures were measured with the polygon tool to determine the density of intracellular CoV particles per μm² cytoplasmic area. Intracellular CoV particles were analysed for particle diameter (largest diameter without spikes), ribonucleoprotein (RNP) diameter (smallest diameter, granular or elongated profiles), and diameter of tubular structures (cells 2 and 15). Measurements were performed with the line annotation tool, analysis was done in Excel (Office Home and Student 2019; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA). Average, standard deviation, minimal and maximal values were determined for CoV diameter, RNP diameter, and tubular structure diameter. No measurements were excluded during data processing.

In FFPE re-embedded olfactory mucosa (case 2), we restricted quantitative analysis to measurement of virus particle diameter due to limited preservation. The maximal diameter of intracellular particles (without spikes), based on TEM images, was measured using Fiji ³⁰ and the “straight line” tool.

We roughly compared viral RNA load measured by RT-qPCR with virus particle number per section and cell to estimate the likelihood of finding CoV particles via thin section EM (Supplementary Methods).

Search and analysis of publications demonstrating immunohistochemical and/or ultrastructural detection of SARS-CoV-2

We defined specific search strategies to find scientific publications using immunohistochemical datasets from autopsy studies with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Additionally, we searched for all scientific publications claiming ultrastructural proof of SARS-CoV-2 particles in infected human tissues (see Supplementary Methods).

Analysis of publications demonstrating immunohistochemical detection of SARS-CoV-2 in human samples

We curated papers with immunohistochemical datasets for inclusion into our overview table (Supplementary Table 1). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid by immunohistochemistry in autopsy tissues showed differences regarding virus protein amounts and interpretation of data. Furthermore, results of adequate positive and negative controls were rarely reported (Supplementary Table 1).

Assessing commercially available antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 proteins

Of the 13 commercially available anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein antibodies that were evaluated in this study, three target the spike protein, two target non-structural protein 3 (Nsp3), seven target the nucleocapsid protein, and one targets double-strand RNA (dsRNA) (Supplementary Table 2).

Firstly, we tested all antibodies on FFPE SARS-CoV-2 infected and un-infected Vero cells (Supplementary Figure 1) simultaneously processed to avoid batch effects. Of the three different spike-protein targeting antibodies, one gave a specific signal with no background, one showed signal, but also produced nonspecific staining. Of note, one widely used antibody (#3) did not produce a signal at all. Both antibodies against Nsp3 generated nonspecific high background staining in un-infected cells. An antibody against dsRNA generated a faint signal in infected cells. Of the seven antibodies detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid, five produced specific staining on infected cells with minimal background in un-infected cells. One widely used antibody showed high nonspecific background in un-infected cells (#12), while one antibody did not produce any signal (#13) (Supplementary Figure 1).

To further investigate the specificity of antibodies that have been widely used before in research, but did not perform well in our FFPE cell-based evaluation, we infected Vero cells with SARS-CoV-2, fixed them in formalin, and stained them without prior embedding into paraffin. To determine viral protein distribution, cells were double-stained with one of the specific nucleocapsid antibodies (#7 or #9) and one of the antibodies in question against spike #3, Nsp3 #5, dsRNA #6, and nucleocapsid #12, respectively (Supplementary Figure 2). Un-infected cells served as control. While antibodies #5, #6, and #12 produced specific staining, antibody #3 did not produce a detectable signal again (Supplementary Figure 2). Since antibodies #4 and #13 did not produce specific signals in FFPE cell blocks or fixed cells, they were not further considered.

To assess the performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in COVID-19 autopsy tissues, we tested nine of the antibodies on FFPE autopsy tissues from COVID-19 patients and controls. We chose lung and respiratory mucosa as these tissue compartments harbor high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads and we stained consecutive sections with our panel of antibodies (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 3). Again, two out of three anti-spike antibodies produced specific staining, while one gave no signal (#3). Of the six different nucleocapsid antibodies, five antibodies showed specific and robust staining. However, the background staining in COVID-19-positive tissues was higher in the polyclonal (#7) and one monoclonal (#11) compared to the other monoclonal antibodies tested in our study. Background staining caused by presence of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in cellular debris or tissue artifacts was higher in lung tissue when compared to that of respiratory mucosa of COVID-19 patients (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 3). Interestingly, signals obtained with antibodies targeting nucleocapsid protein were more abundant in tissues when compared to signals obtained using anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies (Figure 1; Supplementary Figure 3). To evaluate this further we performed double immunofluorescence staining on Vero cells, lung, and respiratory mucosa and consistently observed more nucleocapsid positive cells than spike-protein positive cells. Moreover, nucleocapsid signals were more abundant than spike-protein within double-positive cells and they are evenly distributed throughout individual infected cells (Figure 2). To exclude an antibody-specific effect caused by spike antibody targeting spike 2 (#1), we evaluated several anti-spike antibodies. However, reduced abundance of spike SARS-CoV-2 in contrast to nucleocapsid in cells and tissues could also be confirmed using antibodies against spike S1 and receptor-binding domain (RBD) (Supplementary Figure 4).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Suitable antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 protein detection show an optimal signal to background ratio in human autopsy tissues.

(A) Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung tissues of fatal COVID-19 and non-COVID-control were stained with different anti-spike (spike) and anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibodies (see Supplementary Table 2). Consecutive sections were used to perform the staining to enable comparability of the different antibodies. Green arrows point to single spike-protein positive cells. One widely used antibody (Spike #3) did not detect spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 positive lung tissue. Moreover, one other widely used antibody (N#12) produced very high background staining in non-COVID-control lung tissue. Of note, abundance of spike protein is much lower than that of nucleocapsid. Representative images are shown; scale bar: 100 μm. (B) Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded respiratory mucosa from two COVID-19 patients were stained for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (antibody #9). The SARS-CoV-2-positive cell is evenly stained by the antibody and does not show single dots; scale bar: 50 μm, close-up: 25 μm.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Higher abundance of nucleocapsid in comparison to spike in infected cells and tissues from COVID-19 patients.

(A) Vero cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (MOI 0.5; 24 h), fixated in formalin, and directly stained. Representative staining of SARS-CoV-2 spike (red; antibody spike#1) and nucleocapsid (green; antibody N#7); nuclei/DAPI in white; scale bar: 25 μm. (B) FFPE sections of respiratory mucosa of a COVID-19 patient; scale bar: 25 μm or (C) lung tissue of a COVID-19 patient were stained as above for spike (red), nucleocapsid (green), nuclei/DAPI in white; scale bar: 50 μm, close-up: 10 μm. Note that the signal strength and abundance of spike protein and spike-positive cells is always less than that for nucleocapsid. Thus, we recommend using antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 protein positive cells in human autopsy tissues.

Of note, two widely used and published antibodies did not perform well in our analyses. One antibody (anti-N, #12) produced unacceptably high background staining even in control tissues (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures 1,3), while another widely used antibody (anti-spike, #3) did not result in measurable staining in SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells or COVID-19 tissues (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures 1-3). In summary, six anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein antibodies reliably work on FFPE autopsy tissues from COVID-19 patients, with antibodies against nucleocapsid protein providing better results. Our recommendations for the usage of antibodies for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 proteins in human autopsy tissues are summarized in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 3.

A multicenter study assessing SARS-CoV-2 immunohistochemistry

We selected one monoclonal antibody against nucleocapsid (#9) which showed a very reliable signal in cells and human autopsy tissues with minimal background staining (Figure 1A,B; Supplementary Figures 1,3), to perform a blinded multi-centric study. The goals were (1) to assess, whether IHC staining in human lung autopsy tissue by experienced pathologists is a suitable method to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein and (2) to investigate the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 load as measured by RT-qPCR and IHC (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: IHC for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid correlates with SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA load determined by RT-qPCR.

(A) Lung tissues of COVID-19 patients and respective controls were stained with an antibody against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (#9) and scored in a blinded fashion by pathologists from four different centres (for overview of patient details see Supplementary Tables 4a-c; for scoring results see Supplementary Table 5). We defined four categories for the scoring of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid abundance: 0= no detection; += detection of single and/or regionally separated positive cells; ++= several positive cells and/or cluster of cells in a regionally restricted manner; +++= high abundance of positive cells and/or several highly positive cluster. Representative images of lung tissues for all four scoring categories are shown together with the case number and the RT-qPCR value. Green arrows point towards single positive cells; red arrows mark typical pigmentation due to formalin or anthracosis as further pitfalls for IHC interpretation in lung tissue. Green arrows point to nucleocapsid positive signal, while red arrow point to background typical for lung tissue. Scale bar: 100 μm. (B) SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA load was determined by RT-qPCR of consecutive tissue block paraffin sections. Viral RNA loads correlate with detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid by IHC (r= -0.83, p-value <0.0001). Of note, widespread detection (score+++) of nucleocapsid in lung tissue is only associated with high RNA loads/low ct values, whereas at high ct values (low RNA) detection of positive cells is comparatively low.

Three centers contributed human autopsy lung tissues from COVID-19 deceased individuals which were stained against nucleocapsid. Anonymized patient details are summarized in Supplementary Tables 4a-c. Abundance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid in lung tissue in COVID-19 patients is highly variable and present in a clustered, inhomogenous pattern (Figure 3; Supplementary Figure 5). SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were determined by RT-qPCR of consecutive sections of the same paraffin blocks of the stained tissue samples (Supplementary Table 5). Lung tissues from control patients without pathological lung changes, from patients dying of non-COVID-19 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), and from patients dying with Influenza infections were included since lung tissue intrinsically presents with high background staining (Figure 5; patients in Supplementary Tables 4a-c). Slides were evaluated blinded by pathologists from four different centers and scored in a semiquantitative manner (see Figure 3 for overview and examples; Supplementary Table 5).

We assessed false positive and false negative ratings in lung tissues. The utilized monoclonal antibody (#9) had a sensitivity of 0.71 (Supplementary Table 5). Extensive tissue damage seen in COVID-19 lungs, where pre-necrotic epithelial cells and hyaline membranes obscured interpretation of signals. The specificity for antibody #9 was high at 0.98 (40 True negative/ 40 True negative + 1 False positive; see Supplementary Table 5). A correlation between RT-qPCR-defined SARS-CoV-2 viral loads and the presence of immunohistochemically detected SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein was seen in tissues with high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (Figure 3). COVID-19 tissues with low viral RNA loads were often rated false negative (n=7 with a mean ct value of 28.7) which could be true negative as, in these cases with only a low RNA signal there is probably no SARS-CoV-2 protein, however, in our calculations these figure as false negative. Only two cases out of 71 were not classifiable with an interrater agreement of less than 60%. The overall interrater reliability documented as interrater agreement frequency was 62% and reliability increased up to 83% if only trained raters with experience in SARS-CoV-2 IHC were included (Supplementary Table 5) ³¹. The majority of cases with interrater discrepancy (all raters) were controls (n=14) compared to COVID-19 (n=9), and almost always these cases were rated with single positive cells (Controls and COVID-19 cases). In contrast, COVID-19 cases with a high viral RNA load and a high IHC score were classified correctly.

Thus, our multicenter study showed that detection of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in human autopsy tissues is feasible yet is tainted with technical and interpretational difficulties, highlighting the importance of proper controls in autopsy studies and training of evaluators.

Ultrastructural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in human tissues

Guidance for identifying SARS-CoV-2 has been provided previously, however without detailed consideration of the specific challenges of autopsy tissues ^20,22,23. Key elements guiding ultrastructural identification of SARS-CoV-2 include the presence of a membrane envelope, surface projections (spikes), a granular interior (ribonucleoprotein), and diameters from 60 to 140 nm ²⁰. We searched for SARS-CoV-2 viral particles in the lung, olfactory mucosa (removed directly under the lamina cribrosa, but ultrastructurally only parts with ciliated and goblet cells were identifiable), medulla oblongata, kidney, trachea, and myocardium in autopsy tissues of 16 RT-qPCR-positive COVID-19 patients (Supplementary Table 6).

Overall, virus particles could be identified in 15 cells within the large-scale screening datasets of lung tissue of one patient. All virus-containing cells were found in two of the four digitized sections. Due to simplicity, we refer to these cells as infected cells, albeit intracellular virus particles in e.g. macrophages may be mainly composed of phagocytosed particles. Virus particles were well-preserved with distinct substructures (Figure 4A,B) and virus particles containing cells could be identified as type 2 pneumocytes and alveolar macrophages based on morphological criteria (Supplementary Table 7). Potential viral mimics such as swollen mitochondria, vesicles of rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER), and coated vesicles could be distinguished from viral particles (Supplementary Figure 6) ^23,32-34. We recorded all 15 infected cells in the lung at very high resolution (Figure 5, repository datasets on www.nanotomy.org) for morphometric analyses and found 1557 intracellular and 144 extracellular viral particles. Infected cells showed virus loads ranging from 4 to 620 intracellular particles per sectioned cell profile (or 0.07 to 5.44 intracellular particles per μm² cytoplasmic area, Supplementary Figure 7). Intracellular particles showed a mean diameter of 87 nm (±13 nm; n=1369; 55 to 177 nm). The RNP showed a mean diameter of 7.2 nm (± 1.6 nm; n=433; 3.6 to 13 nm). According to our quantitative analysis and calculations (see Supplementary Methods), individual cells may contain thousands (possibly up to 40,000; cell 7) of CoV particles. Based on a rough approximation from viral RNA load, we can expect 0.006 (case 5) or 500 (case 1) CoV particles/ mm² ultrathin section area for low and high RNA load, respectively, which implies a huge difference in the likelihood of particle detection (see calculations in Supplementary Methods). These calculations also reflect our findings acquired by IHC analyses. No typical replication compartments such as double-membrane vesicles and budding viruses were found, most probably because of the limited structural preservation. However, four cells of the autopsy lung demonstrated peculiar tubular structures which are possibly associated with CoV infection (Supplementary Figure 8) ³².

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Ultrastructural characteristics of coronavirus particles in different types of autopsy samples.

(A,B) Autopsy lung tissue, (C,D) FFPE-re-embedded olfactory mucosa. (A) Well-preserved intracellular coronavirus (CoV) particles (some indicated by white asterisks) in autopsy lung tissue, located within a membrane compartment (black arrow) and showing a distinct biomembrane (white arrows) and, some of them also, faint surface projections (white arrowheads). Note the granular and relatively fine dispersed ribonucleoprotein (RNP; black arrowheads). The appearance of a different electron density between the individual particles (black vs. white #) is a result of different particle volumes (about 90 nm in diameter) captured within the section volume (about 60 nm thickness); a larger particle volume within the section results in higher electron density, a phenomenon that is typical for spherical particles with an electron dense interior (as compared to e.g. empty vesicles). (B) Very few particles demonstrate prominent (well-visible) surface projections, e.g. the right CoV particle (white arrowheads) as compared to the left CoV particle. The two particles show the heterogeneous nature of the RNP in such preparations, with distinct granular and some elongated profiles (black arrowheads) in the left particle and a more granular luminal matrix with few distinct profiles in the right particle. (C) Infected cells within the olfactory mucosa also show membrane compartments (black arrows) with numerous coronavirus particles and also grouped extracellular particles that typically adhere to kinocilia and microvilli (white arrows), but individual particles are less well-preserved and more difficult to identify than particles in A and B. Virus particles appear as groups of electron dense particles of rather uniform size. (D) Virus particles at higher magnification (another region as shown in C). The particles are surrounded by a biomembrane (white arrow) which only rarely show surface projections (white arrowheads; note the globular shape of their peripheral part and also the relatively low electron density as compared to e.g. the RNP). The granular luminal matrix, formed by the RNP, is only visible in a few particles (black arrowhead). Individual images were acquired manually at high resolution by scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM; A,B) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM; C,D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: Large-scale electron microscopy of SARS-CoV-2 in human autopsy lung tissue.

Four entire sections of EM case 1 were automatically digitized (dataset 1 is depicted here) at 3-4 nm pixel size to screen for SARS-CoV-2 infected cells (A-C). In the overview (A), a large vessel (ve) and an alveolus (av) are readily detectable. Preserved microanatomy allows to precisely locate regions of interest at the nanometer scale within the histological context at the millimeter scale. The red box in (A) indicates the position of the infected cell shown in (B; cell 6), the nine black boxes indicate locations of other infected cells. Numerous coronavirus (CoV) particles are located in the region next to the nucleus (nu), note several well-preserved membrane compartments with numerous CoV particles (white asterisks in B, and box in B that is further magnified and marked by the white arrow in C). The screening resolution is sufficient to detect typical CoV morphology (C) with prominent ribonucleoprotein (RNP) within the interior of particles. All infected cells were digitized at a very high resolution of 1 nm pixel size (D-S; T, cell 7) to resolve CoV substructure with improved image quality for validation and quantitative analysis. (D-S) Ultrastructural types of coronavirus particles; for quantitative analysis of CoV particles, different morphological types were defined. (D-G) Type 1 CoV particles are electron dense, corresponding to a large particle volume within the section and are relatively well preserved with a round to oval shape. Different representative appearances are shown here; small particle (D), a standard-sized particle with evenly distributed granular-appearing RNP (E), partly elongated-appearing RNP (F), a larger particle with slightly irregular interior (G). (H-K) Less electron dense type 2 CoV particles, corresponding to a smaller particle volume within the section, while being also relatively well preserved; relatively electron dense particle with well-recognizable biomembrane (H), less electron dense particles with also less distinct biomembrane (I-K). Note that the partly granular and partly elongated RNP profiles are still visible. (L-O) Type 3 CoV particles have the electron density of type 1 or type 2 CoV particles, but show more bizarre shapes. (P-S) Type 4 CoV particles were defined as all extracellular particles next to infected cells; well preserved dark particle (P), some particles showed prominent “fuzzy” coats (Q), less electron dense (R) and deformed (S) particles. (T) Visualization of different particle types in QuPath; type 1 (blue), type 2 (red) and type 3 (green).

See also www.nanotomy.org for internet browser-based open access pan-and-zoom analysis of the full resolution datasets and for our Supplementary Video demonstrating how large-scale electron microscopy facilitates ultrastructural analysis and visual pattern recognition.

Virus particles could also be identified in several ciliated cells within olfactory mucosa of one patient (Supplementary Table 6; Figure 4C,D). However, virus particles were less well-preserved due to the FFPE-embedding and paraffin extraction procedure prior to re-embedding for EM. Thus, their identification relied on comparison of more particles within each cell as well as presence of typical membrane compartments with multiple isomorphic particles enclosed. Virus particles appeared more condensed than virus particles after standard preparation for thin section EM with a mean diameter of 73 nm (± 7 nm; n=175; 58 to 108 nm; intracellular particles).

Of note, no virus particles were found in 26 samples of 14 patients in different tissues (Supplementary Table 6).

Based on reliable reference publications on ultrastructural in situ detection of CoV in human samples ^21,32,35-39, our previous work on SARS-CoV-2 in autopsy tissues ^8,18, cell culture ¹⁶, MERS ⁴⁰, and the results presented here, we developed refined criteria for identification of CoV particles in autopsy samples (Table 2).

Analysis of publications demonstrating ultrastructural evidence for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in human samples

We surveyed publications (published April 2020 to November 2021) using ultrastructural findings as proof of virus particles in human samples (Supplementary Tables 8,9) and re-evaluated the data using our refined criteria for virus identification. Six publications presented sufficient data to prove the presence of virus particles, while 116 publications misinterpreted different cellular structures as virus or showed only insufficient evidence for the presence of virus particles (Supplementary Figure 9). In total, only 63 of 292 electron micrographs (22%) showed sufficient structural preservation and image quality necessary for identifying structural details such as enveloped viruses. Structures misinterpreted as virus particles were mostly compatible with coated vesicles, vesicles of rough endoplasmic reticulum, multivesicular bodies, and autolytic mitochondria. Thirty-eight publications discussed the challenges of SARS-CoV-2 identification by EM (Supplementary Table 10).