Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33768365›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021

Spike vs nucleocapsid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection: application in nasopharyngeal swab specimens.

Moria Barlev-Gross, Shay Weiss, Amir Ben-Shmuel, Assa Sittner, Keren Eden, Noam Mazuz, Itai Glinert, Elad Bar-David, Reut Puni, Sharon Amit and 12 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. COVID-19 and the Vasculature: Current Aspects and Long-Term Consequences.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

22 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Moria Barlev-GrossThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Shay WeissThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Amir Ben-ShmuelThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Assa SittnerThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Keren EdenThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Noam MazuzThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Itai GlinertThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Elad Bar-DavidThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Reut PuniThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Sharon AmitClinical Microbiology, Sheba Medical Centre, 52621, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Or KrigerClinical Microbiology, Sheba Medical Centre, 52621, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Ofir SchusterThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Ron AlcalayThe Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness Ziona, Israel.
Efi MakdasiThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Eyal EpsteinThe Department of Biotechnology, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness Ziona, Israel.
Tal Noy-PoratThe Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness Ziona, Israel.
Ronit RosenfeldThe Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness Ziona, Israel.
Hagit AchdoutThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Ohad MazorThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Tomer IsraelyThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Haim LevyThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
Adva MechalyThe Department of Infectious Diseases, Israel Institute for Biological Research, 7410001, Ness-Ziona, Israel. advam@iibr.gov.il.
Israel Institute for Biological Research · ILSheba Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health experts emphasize the need for quick, point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection as an effective strategy for controlling virus spread. To this end, many "antigen" detection devices were developed and commercialized. These devices are mostly based on detecting SARS-CoV-2's nucleocapsid protein. Recently, alerts issued by both the FDA and the CDC raised concerns regarding the devices' tendency to exhibit false positive results. In this work, we developed a novel alternative spike-based antigen assay, comprising four high-affinity, specific monoclonal antibodies, directed against different epitopes on the spike's S1 subunit. The assay's performance was evaluated for COVID-19 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs, compared to an in-house nucleocapsid-based assay, composed of novel antibodies directed against the nucleocapsid. Detection of COVID-19 was carried out in a cohort of 284 qRT-PCR positive and negative nasopharyngeal swab samples. The time resolved fluorescence (TRF) ELISA spike assay displayed very high specificity (99%) accompanied with a somewhat lower sensitivity (66% for Ct < 25), compared to the nucleocapsid ELISA assay which was more sensitive (85% for Ct < 25) while less specific (87% specificity). Despite being outperformed by qRT-PCR, we suggest that there is room for such tests in the clinical setting, as cheap and rapid pre-screening tools. Our results further suggest that when applying antigen detection, one must consider its intended application (sensitivity vs specificity), taking into consideration that the nucleocapsid might not be the optimal target. In this regard, we propose that a combination of both antigens might contribute to the validity of the results. Schematic representation of sample collection and analysis. The figure was created using BioRender.com.

Indexed as

Coronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansPhosphoproteinsSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingSpike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusCoronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteinsnucleocapsid phosphoprotein, SARS-CoV-2PhosphoproteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2AntigenNasopharyngeal swab specimensNucleocapsidSARS-CoV-2SpikeTRF-ELISA

Identifiers

PMID33768365
PMCPMC7993413
OpenAlexW3137516794

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.