scholarly journals A novel one-step quick assay for detection of SARS-COV2 antibodies across mammalian species

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11381
Author(s):  
Xianjin Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Mammalian Species ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Human Infection ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Animal Reservoir ◽  
Quick Test ◽  
One Step ◽  
The One

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has so far infected almost a hundred of millions of people and caused more than a million of death across the world. Many serological tests have been developed to track down virus infection in community via identification of antibodies against SARS-CoV2 virus. However, the tests vary in sensitivity, specificity, complexity, and speed. Here, I developed a simple, one-step, quick test to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV2 N (scN) nucleocapsid protein via direct visualization of antigen-antibody reaction. A total of 40 serum samples of SARS-CoV2 patients were purchased from RayBiotech. A total of 50 pre-pandemic human serum samples from San Diego Blood Bank were used as negative controls. After performing the one-step quick test of these 90 serum samples, I found that 39 samples are positive for anti-scN antibodies. All of the 39 positives are from the 40 SARS-CoV2 patients, suggesting that the one-step test is more sensitive than the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), the most widely used rapid antibody test. None of the 50 pre-pandemic samples is positive for anti-scN antibodies, indicating that the one-step test has an excellent specificity. The one-step test takes only ~5 min to detect the antibodies; and 1 ml of Escherichia coli culture can produce reagent proteins sufficient for thousands of the tests. Since the one-step test does not need a secondary antibody, it can be used as a universal test for anti-scN antibodies across different mammalian species to track down both human infection and the animal reservoir of SARS-CoV2 virus.

scholarly journals Correlation of the commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain antibody test with the chemiluminescent reduction neutralizing test and possible detection of antibodies to emerging variants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshitomo Morinaga ◽  
Hideki Tani ◽  
Yasushi Terasaki ◽  
Satoshi Nomura ◽  
Hitoshi Kawasuji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Receptor Binding ◽  
Disease Onset ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Binding Domain ◽  
Receptor Binding Domain ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Convalescent Phase

Background Serological tests are beneficial for recognizing the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. To identify protective immunity, optimization of the chemiluminescent reduction neutralizing test (CRNT), using pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2, is critical. Whether commercial antibody tests are comparably accurate is unknown. Methods Serum samples collected before variants were locally found were obtained from confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 74), confirmed non-COVID-19 individuals (n = 179), and unscreened individuals (suspected healthy individuals, n = 229). The convalescent phase was defined as the period after day 10 from disease onset. The CRNT against pseudotyped viruses displaying the wild-type spike protein and a commercially available anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody test were assayed. The CRNT was also assayed, using South African (SA) and United Kingdom (UK)-derived variants. Results The CRNT (cut off value, 50% inhibition) and the anti-RBD antibody test (cut off value, 0.8 U/mL) concurred regarding symptomatic COVID-19 patients in the convalescent phase and clearly differentiated between patients and suspected healthy individuals (sensitivity; 95.8% and 100%, specificity; 99.1% and 100%, respectively). Anti-RBD antibody test results correlated with neutralizing titer (r = 0.47, 95% CI 0.20-0.68). Compared with the wild-type, CRNT reduction was observed for the SA and UK-derived variants. Of the samples with ≥100 U/mL by the anti-RBD antibody test, 77.8% and 88.9% showed ≥50% neutralization against the UK and the SA variants, respectively. Conclusion The CRNT and commercial anti-RBD antibody test effectively classified convalescent COVID-19 patients. The strong positive results using the commercial antibody test can reflect neutralizing activity against emerging variants.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the performance of three serological tests for diagnosis of Leishmania infantum infection in dogs using latent class analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asier Basurco ◽  
Alda Natale ◽  
Katia Capello ◽  
Antonio Fernández ◽  
María Teresa Verde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Leishmania Infantum ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Latent Class Models ◽  
Canine Leishmaniasis ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests

Abstract Canine leishmaniasis (CanL) is a disease caused by Leishmania infantum. Serological methods are the most common diagnostic techniques used for the diagnosis of the CanL. The objective of our study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of one in-house ELISA kit (ELISA UNIZAR) and three commercially available serological tests (MEGACOR Diagnostik GmbH) including an immunochromatographic rapid test (FASTest LEISH®), an immunofluorescent antibody test (MegaFLUO LEISH®) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MegaELISA LEISH®), using latent class models in a Bayesian analysis. Two hundred fifteen serum samples were included. The highest sensitivity was achieved for FASTest LEISH® (99.38%), ELISA UNIZAR (99.37%), MegaFLUO LEISH® (99.36%) followed by MegaELISA LEISH® (98.49%). The best specificity was obtained by FASTest LEISH® (98.43%), followed by ELISA UNIZAR (97.50%), whilst MegaFLUO LEISH® and MegaELISA LEISH® obtained the lower specificity (91.94% and 91.93%, respectively). The results of present study indicate that the immunochromatographic rapid test evaluated FASTest LEISH® show similar levels of sensitivity and specificity to the quantitative commercial tests. Among quantitative serological tests, sensitivity and specificity were similar considering ELISA or IFAT techniques.

scholarly journals Rapid Serological Tests for SARS-COV-2: Diagnostic Performance of Four Commercial Assays

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida ◽  
Regiane Nogueira Spalanzani ◽  
Meri Bordignon Nogueira ◽  
Beatriz Sanada Spiri ◽  
Barbara Maria Cavalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Healthy Control ◽  
One Step ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity

Abstract Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

scholarly journals Rapid Serological Tests for SARS-COV-2: Diagnostic Performance of Four Commercial Assays

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida ◽  
Regiane Nogueira Spalanzani ◽  
Meri Bordignon Nogueira ◽  
Beatriz Sanada Spiri ◽  
Barbara Maria Cavalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Healthy Control ◽  
One Step ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity

Abstract Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Eight Serological Tests for Diagnosis of Imported Schistosomiasis

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 948-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Friedemann Kinkel ◽  
Sabine Dittrich ◽  
Britta Bäumer ◽  
Thomas Weitzel
Keyword(s):  
Antibody Test ◽  
Parasitic Infections ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Commercial Kits ◽  
Few Data ◽  
Indirect Immunofluorescent ◽  
Positive Results ◽  
Immunofluorescent Antibody Test

ABSTRACTThe diagnosis of schistosomiasis in individuals from countries where the disease is not endemic is challenging, and few data are available on the accuracy of serological diagnosis in those patients. We evaluated the performance of eight serological assays, including four commercial kits, in the diagnosis of imported schistosomiasis in individuals from areas where the disease is not endemic, including six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays using three different antigens, an indirect hemagglutination assay, and an indirect immunofluorescent-antibody test. To analyze the assays, we used a total of 141 serum samples, with 121 derived from patients with various parasitic infections (among which were 37 cases of schistosomiasis) and 20 taken from healthy volunteers. The sensitivity values for detection of schistosomiasis cases ranged from 41% to 78% and were higher forSchistosoma mansonithan forS. haematobiuminfections. Specificity values ranged from 76% to 100%; false-positive results were most frequent for samples from patients with cestode infections. By combining two or more tests, sensitivity improved markedly and specificity decreased only moderately. Serological tests are useful instruments for diagnosing imported schistosomiasis in countries where the disease is not endemic, but due to limitations in test sensitivities, we recommend the use of two or more assays in parallel.

scholarly journals Recombinant Human Tissue Transglutaminase ELISA for the Diagnosis of Gluten-sensitive Enteropathy

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 2142-2149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miklós Sárdy ◽  
Uwe Odenthal ◽  
Sarolta Kárpáti ◽  
Mats Paulsson ◽  
Neil Smyth
Keyword(s):  
Guinea Pig ◽  
Tissue Transglutaminase ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity ◽  
Gluten Sensitive Enteropathy ◽  
One Step ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Monkey Esophagus ◽  
Endomysium Antibody

Abstract Background: Tissue transglutaminase (TGc) has recently been identified as the major, if not the sole, autoantigen of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (GSE). We developed and validated an ELISA based on the human recombinant antigen and compared it to existing serological tests for GSE [guinea pig TGc ELISA and endomysium antibody (EMA) test]. Methods: Human TGc was expressed in the human embryonic kidney cell line 293-EBNA as a C-terminal fusion protein with the eight-amino acid Strep-tag II allowing one-step purification via streptavidin affinity chromatography. We carried out ELISA assays for IgA antibodies against TGc using calcium-activated human and guinea pig TGc. The sera were also tested on monkey esophagus sections by indirect immunofluorescence for IgA EMA. We examined 71 serum samples from patients with GSE (38 with celiac disease, 33 with dermatitis herpetiformis), including 16 on therapy, and 53 controls. Results: The human TGc could be expressed and purified as an active enzyme giving a single band on a Coomassie-stained gel. The mean intra- and interassay CVs for the human TGc ELISA were 3.2% and 9.2%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.999. The specificity and sensitivity were 98.1% (95% confidence interval, 95.7–100%) and 98.2% (95.9–100%), respectively. Conclusions: The human TGc ELISA was somewhat superior to the guinea pig TGc ELISA, and was as specific and sensitive as the EMA test. The human TGc-based ELISA is the method of choice for easy and noninvasive screening and diagnosis of GSE.

scholarly journals Rapid Serological Tests for Sars-Cov-2: Diagnostic Performance of Four Commercial Assays

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida ◽  
Regiane Nogueira Spalanzani ◽  
Meri Bordignon Nogueira ◽  
Beatriz Sanada ◽  
Barbara Maria Cavalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Test Kit ◽  
Healthy Control ◽  
One Step ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity

To assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China). Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values. Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

scholarly journals One-Step Rapid Quantification of Serum Neutralizing Antibody after COVID-19 Vaccination by a High-Throughput Nanoplasmonic Sensor Platform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Huang ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Luo Changyou ◽  
Nadia Touil ◽  
Hicham el Annaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Throughput ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Igg Antibody ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
One Step ◽  
The One ◽  
Rapid Quantification

ABSTRACTThe COVID-19 vaccination efficacy depends on serum production level of the neutralizing IgG antibody (NA) specific to the receptor binding domain of SARS-Cov-2 spike protein. Therefore, a high-throughput rapid assay to measure the total SARS-CoV-2 NA level is urgently needed for COVID-19 serodiagnosis, convalescent plasma therapy, vaccine development, and assessment. Here, we developed a nanoplasmonic immunosorbent assay (NanoPISA) platform for one-step rapid quantification of SARS-CoV-2 NAs in clinical serum samples for high-throughput evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. The NanoPISA platform enhanced by the use of nanoporous hollow gold nanoparticle coupling was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 NAs with a limit of detection of 0.1 ng/mL within 15 min. The one-step NanoPISA for SARS-CoV-2 NA detection in clinical specimens yielded good results, comparable to those obtained in the gold standard seroneutralization test and the surrogate virus neutralizing ELISA. Collectively, our findings indicate that the one-step NanoPISA may offer a rapid and high-throughput NA quantification platform for evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of three point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in COVID-19 confirmed healthcare workers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Dias Conte ◽  
Joseane Mayara Almeida Carvalho ◽  
Luciano Kleber de Souza Luna ◽  
Klinger Soares Faíco-Filho ◽  
Ana Helena Perosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Igg Antibody ◽  
Serological Tests

AbstractSince the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Brazil has the third-highest number of confirmed cases and the second-highest number of recovered patients. SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR is the gold standard in certified infrastructured laboratories. However, for large-scale testing, diagnostics should be fast, cost-effective, widely available, and deployed for the community, such as serological tests based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgM/IgG detection. We evaluated three different commercial point-of-care (POC) LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in capillary whole blood of 100 healthcare workers (HCW) previously tested by RT-PCR: 1) COVID-19 IgG/IgM BIO (Bioclin, Brazil), 2) Diagnostic kit for IgM/IgG Antibody to Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (Livzon, China); and 3) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo, China). A total of 84 positives and 16 negatives HCW were tested. The data was also analyzed by the number of days post symptoms (DPS) in three groups: <30 (n=26), 30-59 (n=42), and >59 (n=16). Overall detection was 85.71%, 47.62%, and 44.05% for Bioclin, Livzon, and Wondfo, respectively, with a specificity of 100%, and 98.75% for Livzon on storage serum samples. Bioclin was more sensitive (p<0.01), regardless of the DPS. Thus, the Bioclin can be used as a POC test to monitor SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in HCW.

scholarly journals Serodiagnosis of Visceral Leishmaniasis in Northeastern Italy: Evaluation of Seven Serological Tests

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1847
Author(s):  
Margherita Ortalli ◽  
Daniele Lorrai ◽  
Paolo Gaibani ◽  
Giada Rossini ◽  
Caterina Vocale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visceral Leishmaniasis ◽  
Western Blot ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Northeastern Italy ◽  
Indirect Immunofluorescent ◽  
Immunofluorescent Antibody Test

This study compares the performance of seven assays, including two ELISA (Leishmania ELISA IgG + IgM, Vircell Microbiologists; Leishmania infantum IgG ELISA, NovaTec), three rK39-based immunochromatographic tests (rK39-ICTs) (Leishmania Dipstick Rapydtest, Apacor; On Site Leishmania IgG/IgM Combo Rapid Test, CTK Biotech; LEISHMANIA Strip quick Test, Cypress Diagnostic), one indirect immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT) (Leishmania-Spot IF, BioMérieux), and one western blot (WB) (Leishmania WESTERN BLOT IgG, LDBio Diagnostics) for serodiagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Serum samples from 27 VL patients living in northeastern Italy were analyzed, as well as the serum samples from 50 individuals in whom VL diagnosis was excluded. The WB and the IFAT had 96% sensitivity, followed by the ELISA (63% and 74%, respectively). The rK39-ICT exhibited the worst performance among the serological tests, with sensitivities ranging from 52% to 70%. By combining selected ELISA/ICT, the sensitivity of VL detection reached 89%. IFAT and WB outperformed ELISA and rK39-ICT by possessing optimal sensitivity, but their high cost and complexity of execution would not allow their employment as screening tests. In conclusion, the combination of easy-to-perform tests, such as ICT and ELISA, could improve sensitivity in the serodiagnosis of Mediterranean VL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document