A comparison of four serological assays for detecting anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum samples from different populations

  1. Ludivine Grzelak
  2. Sarah Temmam
  3. Cyril Planchais
  4. Caroline Demeret
  5. Laura Tondeur
  6. Christèle Huon
  7. Florence Guivel-Benhassine
  8. Isabelle Staropoli
  9. Maxime Chazal
  10. Jeremy Dufloo
  11. Delphine Planas
  12. Julian Buchrieser
  13. Maaran Michael Rajah
  14. Remy Robinot
  15. Françoise Porrot
  16. Mélanie Albert
  17. Kuang-Yu Chen
  18. Bernadette Crescenzo-Chaigne
  19. Flora Donati
  20. François Anna
  21. Philippe Souque
  22. Marion Gransagne
  23. Jacques Bellalou
  24. Mireille Nowakowski
  25. Marija Backovic
  26. Lila Bouadma
  27. Lucie Le Fevre
  28. Quentin Le Hingrat
  29. Diane Descamps
  30. Annabelle Pourbaix
  31. Cédric Laouénan
  32. Jade Ghosn
  33. Yazdan Yazdanpanah
  34. Camille Besombes
  35. Nathalie Jolly
  36. Sandrine Pellerin-Fernandes
  37. Olivia Cheny
  38. Marie-Noëlle Ungeheuer
  39. Guillaume Mellon
  40. Pascal Morel
  41. Simon Rolland
  42. Felix A. Rey
  43. Sylvie Behillil
  44. Vincent Enouf
  45. Audrey Lemaitre
  46. Marie-Aude Créach
  47. Stephane Petres
  48. Nicolas Escriou
  49. Pierre Charneau
  50. Arnaud Fontanet
  51. Bruno Hoen
  52. Timothée Bruel
  53. Marc Eloit
  54. Hugo Mouquet
  55. Olivier Schwartz
  56. Sylvie van der Werf

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Different serological assays measuring anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and their neutralizing activity in samples from individuals with severe and mild COVID-19 are compared.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1126/scitranslmed.abc3103
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.21.20068858: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Each participant provided written consent to participate to the study, which was approved by the regional investigational review board (IRB; Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile-de-France VII, Paris, France) and performed according to the European guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationContamination: S-Flow Assay: HEK293T (referred as 293T) cells were from ATCC (ATCC® CRL-3216™) and tested negative for mycoplasma.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    S-Flow Assay: HEK293T (referred as 293T) cells were from ATCC (ATCC® CRL-3216™) and tested negative for mycoplasma.
    HEK293T
    suggested: None
    HEK-293F cells were grown in suspension and transfected with PolyEthylenImine (PEI-25 kDa, Polyscience Inc.,
    HEK-293F
    suggested: RRID:CVCL_6642)
    Microneutralisation Assay: Vero-E6 cells were seeded in 96 well plate at 2.104 cells/well.
    Vero-E6
    suggested: None
    Preparation of lentiviral pseudotypes: Pseudotyped viruses were produced by transfection of 293T cells as previously described 33.
    293T
    suggested: None
    293T-cells stably expressing ACE2 were also used in this assay and yielded similar results.
    293T-cells
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    ELISA-N: A codon-optimized nucleotide fragment encoding full length nucleoprotein was synthetized and cloned into pETM11 expression vector (EMBL).
    EMBL
    suggested: (ChEMBL, RRID:SCR_014042)
    The His-tagged SARS-CoV-2 N protein was bacterially expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) and purified as a soluble dimeric protein by affinity purification using a Ni-NTA Protino column (Macherey Nagel) and gel filtration using a Hiload 16/60 superdex 200 pg column (HE Healthcare).
    HE Healthcare
    suggested: None
    AUC calculation and Receiving Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism software (v8.4.1,
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad Prism Inc.).
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Data processing and analysis: Flow cytometry data were analyzed with FlowJo v10 software (TriStar).
    FlowJo
    suggested: (FlowJo, RRID:SCR_008520)

    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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04325646RecruitingSero-epidemiological Study of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Responsib…

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.21.20068858v1 on medRxiv