Detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 exposed individuals by a sensitive S-based ELISA

Plant production of recombinant antigens containing the receptor binding domain (RBD) of two SARS-CoV-2 variants

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to rapidly produce in plats two recombinant antigens (RBDw-Fc and RBDo-Fc) containing the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein from SARS-CoV-2 variants Wuhan and Omicron as fusion proteins to the Fc portion of a murine IgG2a antibody constant region (Fc).

RESULTS

The two recombinant antigens were expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana plants, engineered to avoid the addition of N-linked plant-typical sugars, through vacuum agroinfiltration and showed comparable purification yields (about 35 mg/kg leaf fresh weight).

CONCLUSIONS

Their Western blotting and Coomassie staining evidenced the occurrence of major in planta proteolysis in the region between the RBD and Fc, which was particularly evident in RBDw-Fc, the only antigen bearing the HRV 3C cysteine protease recognition site. The two RBD N-linked glycosylation sites showed very homogeneous profiles free from plant-typical sugars, with the most abundant glycoform represented by the complex sugar GlcNAc4Man3. Both antigens were specifically recognised in Western Blot analysis by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 human neutralizing monoclonal antibody J08-MUT and RBDw-Fc was successfully used in competitive ELISA experiments for binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor to verify the neutralizing capacity of the serum from vaccinated patients. Both SARS-Cov-2 antigens fused to a murine Fc region were rapidly and functionally produced in plants with potential applications in diagnostics.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum and dried blood spot samples of vaccinated individuals using a sensitive homogeneous proximity extension assay

A homogeneous PCR-based assay for sensitive and specific detection of antibodies in serum or dried blood spots (DBS) is presented and the method is used to monitor individuals infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Detection probes were prepared by conjugating the recombinant spike protein subunit 1 (S1), containing the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, to each of a pair of specific oligonucleotides. The same was done for the nucleocapsid protein (NP). Upon incubation with serum or DBS samples, the bi- or multivalency of the antibodies (IgG, IgA or IgM) brings pairs of viral proteins with their conjugated oligonucleotides in proximity, allowing the antibodies to be detected by a modified proximity extension assay (PEA). Anti-S1 and anti-NP antibodies could be detected simultaneously from one incubation reaction. This Antibody PEA (AbPEA) test uses only 1 µl of neat or up to 100,000-fold diluted serum or one ø1.2 mm disc cut from a DBS. All 100 investigated sera and 21 DBS collected prior to the COVID-19 outbreak were negative, demonstrating a 100% specificity. The area under the curve, as evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis reached 0.998 (95%CI: 0.993-1) for samples taken from 11 days after symptoms onset. The kinetics of antibody responses were monitored after a first and second vaccination using serially collected DBS from 14 individuals. AbPEA offers highly specific and sensitive solution-phase antibody detection without requirement for secondary antibodies, no elution step when using DBS sample in a simple procedure that lends itself to multiplex survey of antibody responses.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Sweden, April 26 to May 9, 2021

A national point seroprevalence study of SARS-CoV-2 was conducted in Sweden in April-May 2021. In total, 2860 individuals 3 to 90 years old from a probability-based web panel were included. Results showed that an estimated 32.6% of the population in Sweden had detectable levels of antibodies, and among non-vaccinated 20.1% had detectable levels of antibodies. We tested for differences in seroprevalence between age groups and by sex and estimated seroprevalence among previously infected participants by time since reporting.

Evaluation of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests by using samples from patients with defined IgG antibody titers

We evaluated the performance of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests using a reference set of heat-inactivated samples from 278 unexposed persons and 258 COVID-19 patients, some of whom contributed serial samples. The reference set included samples with a variation in SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers, as determined by an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The five evaluated rapid diagnostic tests had a specificity of 99.0% and a sensitivity that ranged from 56.3 to 81.6% and decreased with low IFA IgG titers. The specificity was > 99% for five out of six platform-based tests, and when assessed using samples collected ≥ 22 days after symptom onset, two assays had a sensitivity of > 96%. These two assays also detected samples with low IFA titers more frequently than the other assays. In conclusion, the evaluated antibody tests showed a heterogeneity in their performances and only a few tests performed well with samples having low IFA IgG titers, an important aspect for diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Diagnosis for COVID-19: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory illness caused by novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), had its first detection in December 2019 in Wuhan (China) and spread across the world. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic disease. The utilization of prompt and accurate molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus, isolating the infected patients, and treating them are the keys to managing this unprecedented pandemic. International travel acted as a catalyst for the widespread transmission of the virus.Areas covered: This review discusses phenotype, structural, and molecular evolution of recognition elements and primers, its detection in the laboratory, and at point of care. Further, market analysis of commercial products and their performance are also evaluated, providing new ways to confront the ongoing global public health emergency.Expert commentary: The outbreak for COVID-19 created mammoth chaos in the healthcare sector, and still, day by day, new epicenters for the outbreak are being reported. Emphasis should be placed on developing more effective, rapid, and early diagnostic devices. The testing laboratories should invest more in clinically relevant multiplexed and scalable detection tools to fight against a pandemic like this where massive demand for testing exists.

Plant Molecular Farming as a Strategy Against COVID-19 - The Italian Perspective

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has killed more than 37,000 people in Italy and has caused widespread socioeconomic disruption. Urgent measures are needed to contain and control the virus, particularly diagnostic kits for detection and surveillance, therapeutics to reduce mortality among the severely affected, and vaccines to protect the remaining population. Here we discuss the potential role of plant molecular farming in the rapid and scalable supply of protein antigens as reagents and vaccine candidates, antibodies for virus detection and passive immunotherapy, other therapeutic proteins, and virus-like particles as novel vaccine platforms. We calculate the amount of infrastructure and production capacity needed to deal with predictable subsequent waves of COVID-19 in Italy by pooling expertise in plant molecular farming, epidemiology and the Italian health system. We calculate the investment required in molecular farming infrastructure that would enable us to capitalize on this technology, and provide a roadmap for the development of diagnostic reagents and biopharmaceuticals using molecular farming in plants to complement production methods based on the cultivation of microbes and mammalian cells.