From Multiplex Serology to Serolomics—A Novel Approach to the Antibody Response against the SARS-CoV-2 Proteome

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

The emerging SARS-CoV-2 pandemic entails an urgent need for specific and sensitive high-throughput serological assays to assess SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. We, therefore, aimed at developing a fluorescent-bead based SARS-CoV-2 multiplex serology assay for detection of antibody responses to the SARS-CoV-2 proteome. Proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 proteome and protein N of SARS-CoV-1 and common cold Coronaviruses (ccCoVs) were recombinantly expressed in E. coli or HEK293 cells. Assay performance was assessed in a COVID-19 case cohort (n = 48 hospitalized patients from Heidelberg) as well as n = 85 age- and sex-matched pre-pandemic controls from the ESTHER study. Assay validation included comparison with home-made immunofluorescence and commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assays. A sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 86–100%) was achieved in COVID-19 patients 14 days post symptom onset with dual sero-positivity to SARS-CoV-2 N and the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. The specificity obtained with this algorithm was 100% (95% CI: 96–100%). Antibody responses to ccCoVs N were abundantly high and did not correlate with those to SARS-CoV-2 N. Inclusion of additional SARS-CoV-2 proteins as well as separate assessment of immunoglobulin (Ig) classes M, A, and G allowed for explorative analyses regarding disease progression and course of antibody response. This newly developed SARS-CoV-2 multiplex serology assay achieved high sensitivity and specificity to determine SARS-CoV-2 sero-positivity. Its high throughput ability allows epidemiologic SARS-CoV-2 research in large population-based studies. Inclusion of additional pathogens into the panel as well as separate assessment of Ig isotypes will furthermore allow addressing research questions beyond SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.19.20214916: (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 the Medical Faculty Heidelberg (approval number S-148/2020) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
    Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.
    RandomizationWe randomly selected n=88 participants to frequency match the age- and sex-distribution among the above-described hospitalized n=48 Covid-19 patients.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    To assess potential cross-reactivity in the measured antibody responses, we included protein N of SARS-1 (NCBI accession no. NP_828858.1), and ccCoVs NL63 (NCBI accession no. YP_003771.1), 229E (NCBI accession no. NP_073556.1) , OC43 (NCBI accession no. AAT84358.1), and HKU1 (NCBI accession no. YP_173242.1) (Table 1).
    HKU1
    suggested: None
    Bound serum antibodies were labelled separately with biotinylated secondary antibodies (goat anti-human IgM/IgA/IgG, anti-human IgM, anti-human IgG, or anti-human IgA; Jackson ImmunoResearch, Westgrove, PA, USA) and subsequently incubated with Streptavidin-R-Phycoerythrin (MossBio, Pasadena, MD, USA).
    anti-human IgM/IgA/IgG
    suggested: None
    anti-human IgM
    suggested: None
    anti-human IgG
    suggested: None
    anti-human IgA
    suggested: None
    Microscopy-based immunofluorescence detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: Microscopy-based immunofluorescence detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was performed using a newly established semi-automated, semi quantitative approach, as described previously (Pape et al., 2020), for n=38 serum samples of hospitalized Covid-19 patients.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Bound serum IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were detected using goat anti-human IgG-AlexaFluor 488 (Invitogen, Thermofisher Scientific) and evaluated by fluorescence microscopy.
    anti-human IgG-AlexaFluor
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    The technical minimum cut-off was 100 MFI, except for Protein S1 expressed in HEK293 cells (1000 MFI) due to observed variations in background values.
    HEK293
    suggested: None
    Briefly, fixed and permeabilized SARS-CoV-2 infected VeroE6 cells in 96-well plates were incubated with patient serum or control serum, respectively.
    VeroE6
    suggested: JCRB Cat# JCRB1819, RRID:CVCL_YQ49)
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The ESTHER study was approved by the ethics committees of the University of Heidelberg (approval number S-058/2000) and the medical board of the state of Saarland (approval number 67/00).
    ESTHER
    suggested: (ESTHER, RRID:SCR_002621)
    All graphical and descriptive representations were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) or GraphPad Prism 8 (Graphpad Software, Inc.
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Graphpad
    suggested: (GraphPad, RRID:SCR_000306)

    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:
    Our study has several strengths and limitations. One major limitation is the fact that we only detected one out of 15 non-hospitalized Covid-19 patients as sero-positive. However, it should be noted that the non-hospitalized patients included in our study were all sampled within two weeks after symptom onset. In concordance with the literature (Okba et al., 2020), we observed that among hospitalized patients only after 14 days post symptom onset maximum sensitivity of the assay can be achieved. Moreover, non-hospitalized patients were of younger age and had a higher proportion of females than our control population, which might have affected the level of antibody response. A larger pre-pandemic control sample set with a wider age distribution is needed to address this question. The sensitivity among SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals experiencing mild or no symptoms also in relation to the time-point of infection needs to be further elucidated, especially with respect to future applications of the assay in large population-based cohorts. A major strength of our newly developed SARS-CoV-2 serological assay is its multiplex approach, allowing for the assessment of up to 100 antigens in parallel. It does not only permit inclusion of multiple SARS-CoV-2 proteins but also autoantigens or antigens from pathogens that might induce antibody responses due to (re-)activation or co-infection during the course of Covid-19 disease, as it was previously described for Herpesviruses (Amorim Dos...

    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.