Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33137138›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Performance of nucleocapsid and spike-based SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays.

Zahra Rikhtegaran Tehrani, Saman Saadat, Ebtehal Saleh, Xin Ouyang, Niel Constantine, Anthony L DeVico, Anthony D Harris, George K Lewis, Shyam Kottilil, Mohammad M Sajadi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of SARS-COV-2 IGM and IGG tests in individuals with COVID-19.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Analysis of the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in groups of medical and non-medical professions.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zahra Rikhtegaran TehraniDivision of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1127-1290
Saman SaadatDivision of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9851-7638
Ebtehal SalehDivision of Epidemiology & Prevention, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Xin OuyangDivision of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Niel ConstantineDivision of Epidemiology & Prevention, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Anthony L DeVicoDivision of Vaccine Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Anthony D HarrisDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
George K LewisDivision of Vaccine Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Shyam KottililDivision of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7471-0812
Mohammad M SajadiDivision of Clinical Care and Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7798-3605
University of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

Project 3- Mucosal Determinants of Virus TransmissionP01AI124912 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI GALLO, ROBERT C · 2016 to 2019
$14.4M
Engineering of pan-neutralizing anti-HIV envelope antibodiesR01AI147870 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI SAJADI, MOHAMMAD MOHSENI · 2020 to 2024
$2.5M
BLRD VA I01 BX004525BLRD VA I01 BX005469NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000556NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI124912NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI147870NIH HHS R01AI147870-01A1NIH HHS U01CK000556-02-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralArea Under CurveBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FemaleHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin AImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33137138
PMCPMC7605638
OpenAlexW3094898198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.