Low Risk of Serological Cross-Reactivity between the Dengue Virus and SARS-CoV-2-IgG Antibodies Using Advanced Detection Assays

  1. Farah M. Shurrab
  2. Duaa W. Al-Sadeq
  3. Fatima Humaira Amanullah
  4. Enas S. Al-Absi
  5. Hamda Qotba
  6. Hadi M. Yassine
  7. Laith J. Abu-Raddad
  8. Gheyath K. Nasrallah

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Several studies have reported serological cross-reactivity of the immune responses between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV. Most of the available studies are based on the point-of-care rapid testing kits. However, some rapid test kits have low specificity and can generate false positives. Hence, we aimed to investigate the potential serological cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV-IgG antibodies using advanced assays including chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. A total of 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA-positive and 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA-negative prepandemic sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG using the automated CL-900i CLIA assay. Furthermore, a total of 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA-positive and 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA-negative postpandemic sera were tested for anti-DENV-IgG using the NovaLisa ELISA kit. The DENV-IgG-positive sera resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. Similarly, the DENV-IgG-negative sera also resulted in 5 positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. No statistically significant difference in specificity between the DENV-IgG-positive and DENV-IgG-negative sera was found (<i>p</i> value = 1.00). The SARS-CoV-2-IgG-positive sera displayed 43 positives, 47 negatives, and 1 equivocal for DENV-IgG, whereas the SARS-CoV-2-IgG-negative sera resulted in 50 positives, 40 negatives, and 1 equivocal for DENV-IgG. No statistically significant difference in the proportion that is DENV-IgG positive between the SARS-CoV-2-IgG-positive and SARS-CoV-2-IgG-negative sera (<i>p</i> value = 0.58). In conclusion, there is a low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the DENV and SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies when using advanced detection assays.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1159/000522479
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255725: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This project was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Qatar University (QU-IRB 1492-E/21).
    Sex as a biological variableSpecimens were collected from males, 24-69 years of age, and from nationalities of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern origins, all of whom residing currently in Qatar.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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 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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255725v1 on medRxiv