Performance of a flow cytometry-based immunoassay for detection of antibodies binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

The performance of a laboratory-developed IgG/IgA flow cytometry-based immunoassay (FCI) using Jurkat T cells stably expressing full-length native S protein was compared against Elecsys electrochemiluminiscent (ECLIA) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG chemiluminiscent assay (CLIA) (Diasorin S.p.a, Saluggia, IT) for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. A total of 225 serum/plasma specimens from 120 acute or convalescent COVID-19 individuals were included. Overall, IgG/IgA-FCI yielded the highest number of positives (n = 179), followed by IgA-FCI (n = 177), Roche ECLIA (n = 175), IgG-FCI (n = 172) and Diasorin CLIA (n = 154). For sera collected early after the onset of symptoms (within 15 days) IgG/IgA-FCI also returned the highest number of positive results (52/72; 72.2%). Positive percent agreement between FCI and compared immunoassays was highest for Roche ECLIA, ranging from 96.1 (IgG/IgA-FCI) to 97.7% (IgG-FCI), whereas negative percent agreement was higher between FCI and Diasosin CLIA, regardless of antibody isotype. The data suggest that FCI may outperform Roche ECLIA and Diasorin CLIA in terms of clinical sensitivity for serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.06.21254995: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital Clínico Universitario INCLIVA.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    IgG or IgA antibodies bound to S proteins were identified by comparing the median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of the S-Jurkat and the 0-Jurkat cells in each sample.
    IgA
    suggested: None
    Samples were considered positive for IgG or IgA when the normalized difference was ≥ 1. Commercially-available chemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 S assays: Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), an electrochemiluminescence sandwich immunoassay (ECLIA) that quantifies total (IgG and IgM) antibodies directed against RBD, was run on cobas® e601 modular analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland).
    total (IgG
    suggested: None
    IgM
    suggested: None
    The assay is calibrated with the first WHO International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody (15).
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (Diasorin S.p.a, Saluggia, Italy), run on a DiaSorin LIAISON platform (DiaSorin, Stillwater, USA), measured IgG antibodies against a trimeric S-protein antigen.
    a trimeric S-protein antigen.
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Non-transfected Jurkat cells (0-Jutkat) were used as controls.
    Jurkat
    suggested: None
    For each individual assay, a mixture of 50,000 0-Jurkat and 150,000 S-Jurkat cells was made in a single tube.
    S-Jurkat
    suggested: None
    We established the difference between S-Jurkat and 0-Jurkat cells using the normalized MFI-ratio between EGFR and both antibody isotypes (IgG MFI-ratio and IgA MFI-ratio respectively).
    0-Jurkat
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The analyses were performed using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    In our view, the main limitations of the current study are the relative small number of specimens included in the evaluation panel and that discrepancies across results returned by the evaluated immunoassays were not resolved by performing antibody neutralization assays, the gold standard for serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6). In summary, herein we have shown that a FCI using Jurkat T cells expressing the SARS-CoV-2 native S protein for detection of IgG and IgA-specific antibodies is highly specific and seemingly provides increased clinical sensitivity for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to two new-generation immunoassays targeting either the S protein in its trimeric conformation (Diasorin CLIA) or RBD (Roche ECLIA). The assay is easy to perform and standardize; the need for a flow cytometer should not be viewed as a disadvantage compared to high-throughput CLIA assays, as this platform is widely available at immunology and hematology departments in hospitals of all sizes. Further studies evaluating the performance of FCI for documenting seroconversion in vaccinated people are underway.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.