Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33331401›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

Natural versus Recombinant Viral Antigens in SARS-CoV-2 Serology: Challenges in Optimizing Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19.

Luciana Regina Meireles, Angélica Moura Freixeira da Silva, Camila Aparecida Carvalho, Norival Kesper, Andrés Jimenez Galisteo, Camila Pereira Soares, Danielle Bastos Araujo, Edison Luiz Durigon, Danielle Bruna Leal Oliveira, Lígia Morganti and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Standardization and performance of SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP detection: a reliable, inexpensive, and alternative diagnostic assay.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Luciana Regina MeirelesLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0913-1579
Angélica Moura Freixeira da SilvaLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4505-1795
Camila Aparecida CarvalhoLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1762-2749
Norival KesperLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4076-0461
Andrés Jimenez GalisteoLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1611-6721
Camila Pereira SoaresDepartamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas da Universidade de Sao Paulo (ICB-USP), Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-7179
Danielle Bastos AraujoDepartamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas da Universidade de Sao Paulo (ICB-USP), Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2987-7466
Edison Luiz DurigonDepartamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas da Universidade de Sao Paulo (ICB-USP), Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-6553
Danielle Bruna Leal OliveiraDepartamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas da Universidade de Sao Paulo (ICB-USP), Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-0886
Lígia MorgantiInstituto de Pesquisas Energeticas e Nucleares (IPEN-CNEN/SP), Centro de Biotecnologia, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-1793
Rosa Maria Chura-ChambiInstituto de Pesquisas Energeticas e Nucleares (IPEN-CNEN/SP), Centro de Biotecnologia, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5266-4878
Heitor Franco de AndradeLaboratorio de Protozoologia do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina (FMUSP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4697-4647
Universidade de São Paulo · BRInstituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCOVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern whose detection in recovered asymptomatic patients is dependent on accurate diagnosis as it enables the estimation of the susceptibility of the population to the infection. This demand has resulted in the development of several commercial assays employing recombinant proteins, but the results of these assays are not reliable as they do not involve comparison with natural viral antigens. We independently used the SARS-CoV-2 whole viral antigen (WVA) and recombinant nucleocapsid protein (rNP) to develop in-house ELISAs for IgG detection; the results of these ELISAs were then compared to obtain reliable results.

methodsWVA and rNP ELISAs were performed on COVID-19 negative sera from patients before the pandemic in Brazil, and on RT-qPCR-positive or SARS-CoV-2-IgG against rNP and IgG against WVA-positive samples from recently infected patients in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

resultsBoth ELISAs detected a large fraction of infected patients but exhibited certain drawbacks. Higher signals and lower numbers of false-negatives were observed in rNP ELISA; however, a higher fraction of false-positives was observed in control groups. A high number of false-negatives was observed with WVA ELISA. Correlating the results of rNP and WVA ELISAs resulted in improved performance for COVID-19 diagnosis.

conclusionThe choice of antigen is an important aspect in optimizing the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. The use of rNP ELISA for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies seems promising, but comparison of the results with those of WVA ELISA is crucial for accurate test development prior to commercialization. IgG serology using several assays, and with the spectral patterns of SARS-CoV-2, resulted in confusing information that must be clarified before the establishment of diagnostic serology criteria.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralBrazilClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, ViralAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID33331401
PMCPMC7690966
OpenAlexW3107787921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.