Immunoassay-Compatible Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in Plasma Samples for Enhanced Handling Safety
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liew O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9301769 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:High-throughput sequencing of the miRNAs present in plasma of COVID-19 patients at an early stage of the disease including non-SARS-CoV2 infected patients. This study allowed us to identify and functionally characterize human miRNAs associated with a worse evolution of the disease and a greater mortality. Samples were collected at hospital entry or within the first days after hospitalization and before treatment with immunotherapy for IL6 (e.g. Tocilizumab), interferon beta, corticoids and ribavirin, among others. Plasma samples were obtained from peripheral blood extracted in EDTA tubes after centrifugation. Total RNA, including small RNAs, was isolated from 400μl of plasma with the miRNeasy Serum Plasma Advanced kit (Qiagen). RNA quality and quantity were evaluated by the Bioanalyzer 2100 with Agilent RNA 6000 Nano Kit.
2022-04-03 | E-MTAB-10562 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Introduction Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. Methods We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR. Results During the study period, 1127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%–87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%–98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%–81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%–99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%–96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%–93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. Conclusions The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.
| S-EPMC8549190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe validate the use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample.MethodsSamples collected by venous blood draw and finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients. Samples were tested with Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with ELISA.ResultsBiolidics LFI showed clinical sensitivity of 92% with venous blood at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p = 1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p = 0.04). Capillary blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection.ConclusionsClinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit is comparable to ELISA and was consistent across sample types. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
| S-EPMC7647890 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST379 | biostudies-other
Project description:Antibody detection methods for viral infections have received broad attention due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there remains an ever-increasing need to quantitatively evaluate the immune response to develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. Here, we report an analytical method for the rapid and quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibody in human serum by fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA). A recombinant SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) protein labeled with HiLyte Fluor 647 (F-RBD) was prepared and used for FPIA. When the anti-RBD antibody in human serum binds to F-RBD, the degree of polarization (P) increases by suppressing the rotational diffusion of F-RBD. The measurement procedure required only mixing a reagent containing F-RBD with serum sample and measuring the P value with a portable fluorescence polarization analyzer after 15 min incubation. We evaluated analytical performance of the developed FPIA system using 30 samples: 20 COVID-19 positive sera and 10 negative sera. The receiver operating characteristic curve drawn with the obtained results showed that this FPIA system had high accuracy for discriminating COVID-19 positive or negative serum (AUC = 0.965). The total measurement time was about 20 min, and the serum volume required for measurement was 0.25 μL. Therefore, we successfully developed the FPIA system that enables rapid and easy quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antibody. It is believed that our FPIA system will facilitate rapid on-site identification of infected persons and deepen understanding of the immune response to COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8178067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dried blood spot samples (DBS) provide an alternative sample type to venous blood samples for antibody testing. DBS are used by NHS for diagnosing Hepatitis C and by Public Health England for large scale HIV and Hepatitis C serosurveillance; the applicability of DBS based approaches for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is uncertain. The study aimed to compare antibody detection in DBS eluates using the Roche Elecsys ® immunoassay with antibody detection in paired plasma samples, using the same assay. The study was in one Police and one Fire & Rescue facility in England; it comprised of 195 participants within a larger sample COVID-19 serodiagnostics study of keyworkers, EDSAB-HOME. Outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of DBS (the index test) relative to plasma (the reference test), at an experimental cut-off; quality of DBS sample collected; estimates of relative sensitivity of DBS vs. plasma immunoassay in a larger population. 18/195 (9.2%) participants tested positive using plasma samples. DBS sample quality varied markedly by phlebotomist, and low sample volume significantly reduced immunoassay signals. Using an experimental cut-off, sensitivity and specificity of DBS were 89.0% (95% CI 67.2, 96.9%) and 100.0% (95% CI 97.9, 100%) respectively compared with using plasma. The limit of detection for DBS is about 30 times higher than for plasma. DBS use for SARS-CoV-2 serology, though feasible, is insensitive relative to immunoassays on plasma. Sample quality impacts on assay performance. Alternatives, including the collection of capillary blood samples, should be considered for screening programs.
| S-EPMC7817498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious virus and is causing a global pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the recognition of and binding to the cellular receptor human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) through the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein, and disruption of this process can effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 invasion. Plasma-activated water efficiently inactivates bacteria and bacteriophages by causing damage to biological macromolecules, but its effect on coronavirus has not been reported. In this study, pseudoviruses with the SARS-CoV-2 S protein were used as a model, and plasma-activated water (PAW) effectively inhibited pseudovirus infection through S protein inactivation. The RBD was used to study the molecular details, and the RBD binding activity was inactivated by plasma-activated water through the RBD modification. The short-lived reactive species in the PAW, such as ONOO-, played crucial roles in this inactivation. Plasma-activated water after room-temperature storage of 30 days remained capable of significantly reducing the RBD binding with hACE2. Together, our findings provide evidence of a potent disinfection strategy to combat the epidemic caused by SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7677677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5.ConclusionsThe Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.
| S-EPMC7320699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples. METHODS:51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens. RESULTS:Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS:The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.
| S-EPMC7343640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is the cause of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, infecting millions of people and causing more than two million deaths. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoproteins mediate viral entry and represent the main target for antibody responses. Humoral responses were shown to be important for preventing and controlling infection by coronaviruses. A promising approach to reduce the severity of COVID-19 is the transfusion of convalescent plasma. However, longitudinal studies revealed that the level of antibodies targeting the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike declines rapidly after the resolution of the infection.Study design and methodsTo extend this observation beyond the RBD domain, we performed a longitudinal analysis of the persistence of antibodies targeting the full-length SARS-CoV-2 Spike in the plasma from 15 convalescent donors. We generated a 293T cell line constitutively expressing the SARS-CoV-2 Spike and used it to develop a high-throughput flow cytometry-based assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific antibodies in the plasma of convalescent donors.Results and conclusionWe found that the level of antibodies targeting the full-length SARS-CoV-2 Spike declines gradually after the resolution of the infection. This decline was not related to the number of donations but strongly correlated with the decline of RBD-specific antibodies and the number of days post-symptom onset. These findings help to better understand the decline of humoral responses against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike and provide important information on when to collect plasma after recovery from active infection for convalescent plasma transfusion.
| S-EPMC8013554 | biostudies-literature