Kinetics and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a comparison of 3 different assays

  1. Elisabeth Kahre
  2. Lukas Galow
  3. Manja Unrath
  4. Luise Haag
  5. Judith Blankenburg
  6. Alexander H. Dalpke
  7. Christian Lück
  8. Reinhard Berner
  9. Jakob P. Armann

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Comparing seroprevalence and antibody kinetics in three different commercially available assays for SARS-CoV-2. Serostatus of COVID-19 patients was analyzed 5 months and 10 months after their infection, using three different assays: Diasorin LIAISON, Euroimmun, Abbott Diagnostics ARCHITECT. Seropositivity at baseline differed significantly depending on the assay (Diasorin 81%, Euroimmun 83%, Abbott 59%). At follow-up antibody levels detected in the Diasorin assay were stable, while there was a significant loss in seropositivity in the Euroimmun and Abbott assays. There are significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody kinetics based on the specific assay used.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-021-94453-5
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-470570/v1 on Research Square
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253273: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The AmbCoviDD19 study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Technische Universität (TU) Dresden (BO-EK-137042020) and has been assigned clinical trial number DRKS00022549.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Laboratory Analysis: We assessed SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in all samples using three commercially available assays.
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    First, chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) technology for the quantitative determination of anti-S1 and anti-S2 specific IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was used: Diasorin LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG Assay.
    anti-S1
    suggested: None
    anti-S2 specific IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Third, chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) intended for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2, Abbott Diagnostics® ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG, was used; an index (S/C) of < 1.4 was considered negative, >/= 1.4 was considered positive.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    Statistical Analysis: Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25.0 and Microsoft Excel 2010.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.10.21253273v1 on medRxiv