PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sagara, Issaka
AU  - Woodford, John
AU  - Dicko, Alassane
AU  - Zeguime, Amatigue
AU  - Doucoure, M’Bouye
AU  - Kwan, Jennifer
AU  - Zaidi, Irfan
AU  - Doritchamou, Justin
AU  - Snow-Smith, Maryonne
AU  - Alani, Nada
AU  - Renn, Jonathan
AU  - Kosik, Ivan
AU  - Holly, Jaroslav
AU  - Yewdell, Jonathan
AU  - Esposito, Dominic
AU  - Sadtler, Kaitlyn
AU  - Duffy, Patrick
TI  - SARS-CoV-2 seroassay optimization and performance in a population with high background reactivity in Mali
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.08.21252784
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.08.21252784
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.08.21252784.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.08.21252784.full
AB  - Serological tests are an indispensable tool to understand the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, particularly in areas where molecular diagnostics are limited. Poor assay performance may hinder the utility of these tests, including high rates of false-positivity previously reported in sub-Saharan Africa. From 312 Malian samples collected prior to 2020, we measured antibodies to the commonly tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens and four other betacoronaviruses by ELISA, and assessed functional cross-reactivity in a subset by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay. We then evaluated the performance of an ELISA developed in the US, using two-antigen SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain. To optimize test performance, we compared single and two-antigen approaches using existing assay cutoffs and population-specific cutoffs for Malian control samples (positive and negative). Background reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens was common in pre-pandemic samples compared to US controls (43.4% (135/311) for spike protein, 22.8% (71/312) for RBD, and 33.9% (79/233) for nucleocapsid protein). SARS-CoV-2 reactivity correlated weakly with other betacoronavirus reactivity, varied between Malian communities, and increased with age. No pre-pandemic samples demonstrated functional activity. Regardless of the cutoffs applied, specificity improved using a two-antigen approach. Test performance was optimal using a two-antigen assay with population-specific cutoffs derived from ROC curve analysis [Sensitivity: 73.9% (51.6-89.8), Specificity: 99.4% (97.7-99.9)]. In the setting of high background reactivity, such as sub-Saharan Africa, SARS-CoV-2 serological assays need careful qualification is to characterize the epidemiology of disease, prevent unnecessary harm, and allocate resources for targeted control measures.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis project was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. This project has been funded in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under contract number HHSN261200800001E.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Malian convalescent samples were collected with the approval of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Science, Techniques, and Technologies of Bamako (FMPOS USTTB) ethics committee (No2020/114/CE/FMOS/FAPH) and with a non-human subject research waiver from the National Institutes of Health Institutional Review Board (NIH IRB). Samples collected from existing studies were obtained under non-human subject research use waivers from FMPOS USTTB and NIH IRB.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available in the manuscript