ArticleJournal of immunological methods2023
Methodological approaches to optimize multiplex oral fluid SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay performance and correlation with serologic and neutralizing antibody responses.
Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rural targeted messaging, multiplex salivary measurement, and rural equity in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: Protocol overview of a SeroNet investigation.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Indoor Air Nicotine, Nitrogen Dioxide Exposure, and COVID-19 Outcomes in a Great Plains Tribal Community.Indoor air · 2026Article
- Culturally targeted messaging and racial equity in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by multiplex salivary measurement: Protocol overview of a SeroNet investigation.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Early, Robust Mucosal Secretory Immunoglobulin A but not Immunoglobulin G Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Spike in Oral Fluid Is Associated With Faster Viral Clearance and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Symptom Resolution.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Application of machine learning algorithms to identify serological predictors of COVID-19 severity and outcomes.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, USA, 2021 to 2022.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 point-of-care tests can identify low-antibody individuals: In-depth immunoanalysis of boosting benefits in a healthy cohort.Science advances · 2024Article
- Application of machine learning models to identify serological predictors of COVID-19 severity and outcomes.Research square · 2023Article
- A Saliva-Based Serological and Behavioral Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence in Howard County, Maryland.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOral fluid (hereafter, saliva) is a non-invasive and attractive alternative to blood for SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing; however, the heterogeneity of saliva as a matrix poses challenges for immunoassay performance.
objectivesTo optimize performance of a magnetic microparticle-based multiplex immunoassay (MIA) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG measurement in saliva, with consideration of: i) threshold setting and validation across different MIA bead batches; ii) sample qualification based on salivary total IgG concentration; iii) calibration to U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serological standard binding antibody units (BAU); and iv) correlations with blood-based SARS-CoV-2 serological and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays.
methodsThe salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG MIA included 2 nucleocapsid (N), 3 receptor-binding domain (RBD), and 2 spike protein (S) antigens. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) swab saliva samples were collected before December 2019 (n = 555) and after molecular test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 113 individuals (providing up to 5 repeated-measures; n = 398) and used to optimize and validate MIA performance (total n = 953). Combinations of IgG responses to N, RBD and S and total salivary IgG concentration (μg/mL) as a qualifier of nonreactive samples were optimized and validated, calibrated to the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serological standard, and correlated with blood-based SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA and nAb assays.
resultsThe sum of signal to cutoff (S/Co) to all seven MIA SARS-CoV-2 antigens and disqualification of nonreactive saliva samples with ≤15 μg/mL total IgG led to correct classification of 62/62 positives (sensitivity [Se] = 100.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 94.8%, 100.0%) and 108/109 negatives (specificity [Sp] = 99.1%; 95% CI = 97.3%, 100.0%) at 8-million beads coupling scale and 80/81 positives (Se = 98.8%; 95% CI = 93.3%, 100.0%] and 127/127 negatives (Sp = 100%; 95% CI = 97.1%, 100.0%) at 20-million beads coupling scale. Salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG crossed the MIA cutoff of 0.1 BAU/mL on average 9 days post-COVID-19 symptom onset and peaked around day 30. Among n = 30 matched saliva and plasma samples, salivary SARS-CoV-2 MIA IgG levels correlated with corresponding-antigen plasma ELISA IgG (N: ρ = 0.76, RBD: ρ = 0.83, S: ρ = 0.82; all p < 0.001). Correlations of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nAb assay area under the curve (AUC) with salivary MIA IgG (N: ρ = 0.68, RBD: ρ = 0.78, S: ρ = 0.79; all p < 0.001) and with plasma ELISA IgG (N: ρ = 0.76, RBD: ρ = 0.79, S: ρ = 0.76; p < 0.001) were similar.
conclusionsA salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG MIA produced consistently high Se (> 98.8%) and Sp (> 99.1%) across two bead coupling scales and correlations with nAb responses that were similar to blood-based SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA data. This non-invasive salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG MIA could increase engagement of vulnerable populations and improve broad understanding of humoral immunity (kinetics and gaps) within the evolving context of booster vaccination, viral variants and waning immunity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.