Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35750222›Full record

ArticleJournal of virological methods2022

Validation of laboratory developed serology assays for detection of IgG antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in the South African population.

Litabe Matefo, van Vuuren Cloete, Bester Philip Armand, Goedhals Dominique, Potgieter Samantha, Frater John, Thompson Craig, Wright Daniel, Lambe Theresa, Gupta Sunetra and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virological methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Litabe MatefoPathogen Research Laboratory, Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
van Vuuren CloeteDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; 3 Military Hospital, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Bester Philip ArmandPathogen Research Laboratory, Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; Division of Virology, National Health Laboratory Service, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Goedhals DominiqueDivision of Virology, National Health Laboratory Service, Bloemfontein, South Africa; PathCare Vermaak, Pretoria, South Africa.
Potgieter SamanthaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Frater JohnOxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom; Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Thompson CraigDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Wright DanielChinese Academy of Medical Science (CAMS) Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Lambe TheresaChinese Academy of Medical Science (CAMS) Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gupta SunetraDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Peter Medawar Building for Pathogen Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Brink MarézaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
van Jaarsveldt DanellePathogen Research Laboratory, Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Burt Felicity JanePathogen Research Laboratory, Division of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; Division of Virology, National Health Laboratory Service, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Electronic address: burtfj@ufs.ac.za.
University of the Free State · ZAUniversity of Oxford · GBJenner Institute · GBNational Health Laboratory Service · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serological assays for detection of IgG, IgM or IgA against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) play an important role in surveillance, antibody persistence, vaccine coverage and infection rate. Serological assays, including both ELISA and rapid lateral flow assays, are available commercially but the cost limits their accessibility for low resource countries. Although serological assays based on mammalian-expressed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have been previously described these assays need to be validated using samples from local populations within the continent, or country, in which they will be used. Interpretation of results could be influenced by differences in specificity and potential for pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies. In this study, we investigated two laboratory developed serological assays, an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an immunofluorescent assay (IFA), developed using recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, for use in South African populations. The tests were compared with commercially available and South Africa Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAPHRA) approved assays. A panel of 100 residual diagnostic serum samples, collected prior to the pandemic, were tested on three separate occasions to determine a suitable cut-off value for differentiation of positive from negative samples. Specificity of 96 % and 100 % for ELISA and IFA respectively was demonstrated. A total of 82/89 serum samples collected between days 2-94 after onset of illness from patients with a positive molecular result were positive for IgG antibody. The sensitivity of the laboratory developed assays on samples collected > one week after onset of illness was shown to be 100 % and 98.8 % for ELISA and IFA respectively. Positive predictive values were 92.1 % for ELISA and 91.0 % for IFA using characterization of samples as positive based on confirmation of infection using RT-PCR. Serum samples (n = 62) collected from RT-PCR positive patients infected with either ancestral, or emerging variants such as Beta or Delta, tested positive for IgG antibody (62/62) using the laboratory developed assays confirming application of the assays regardless of currently circulating variant during the time of evaluation. High concordance was demonstrated between the laboratory developed assays and the commercial immunoassay among samples collected from South African populations, although the small sample size, especially for the comparison with commercial assays, must be noted. If all quality assurance controls are in place, the use of local laboratory developed assays for high-throughput screening in resource-constrained environments is a realistic alternative option.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin GSensitivity and SpecificitySouth AfricaSpike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2Laboratory developedSARS-CoV-2Serology assays

Identifiers

PMID35750222
PMCPMC9212509
OpenAlexW4283205680

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.