Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34190591›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2021

Anti-Spike Protein Assays to Determine SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels: a Head-to-Head Comparison of Five Quantitative Assays.

Thomas Perkmann, Nicole Perkmann-Nagele, Thomas Koller, Patrick Mucher, Astrid Radakovics, Rodrig Marculescu, Michael Wolzt, Oswald F Wagner, Christoph J Binder, Helmuth Haslacher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 194 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas PerkmannDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nicole Perkmann-NageleDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas KollerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Patrick MucherDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Astrid RadakovicsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Rodrig MarculescuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael WolztDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Oswald F WagnerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christoph J BinderDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Helmuth HaslacherDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-4605-2503
Medical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reliable quantification of the antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is highly relevant, e.g., for identifying possible vaccine failure and estimating the time of protection. Therefore, we evaluated five different anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays regarding the quantification of anti-spike (S) antibodies. Sera from 69 SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals 21 ± 1 days after vaccination with a single dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) were tested using the following quantitative assays: Roche S total antibody, DiaSorin trimeric spike IgG, DiaSorin S1/S2 IgG, Abbott II IgG, and Serion/Virion IgG. Results were further compared to the percent inhibition calculated from a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Individual values were distributed over several orders of magnitude for all assays. Although the assays were in good overall agreement (ρ = 0.80 to 0.94), Passing-Bablok regression revealed systematic constant and proportional differences, which could not be eliminated by converting the results to binding antibody units (BAU) per milliliter, as suggested by the manufacturers. Seven (10%) individuals had negative sVNT results (i.e., <30% inhibition). These samples were identified by most assays and yielded significantly lower binding antibody levels. Although all assays showed good correlation, they were not interchangeable, even when converted to BAU per milliliter using the WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. This highlights the need for further standardization of SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Indexed as

AdultAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin GMaleMiddle AgedNeutralization TestsSARS-CoV-2Spike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusVaccinationAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin GSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2assay standardizationcomparisonimmunizationquantitative antibody assaysquantitative methodsSARS-CoV-2serologyvaccination

Identifiers

PMID34190591
PMCPMC8552734
OpenAlexW3173738234

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.