Cross-reaction of Sera from COVID-19 Patients with SARS-CoV Assays

  1. Wei Yee Wan
  2. Siew Hoon Lim
  3. Eng Hong Seng

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2020120
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.17.20034454: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationFor negative controls, 10 samples which were sent for unrelated virology tests from 2 different groups of patients were randomly selected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We performed two serological test methods on the selected samples using the SARS-CoV total antibody ELISA test as described by Ksiazek et al8 and Anti-SARS CoV Indirect Immunofluorescence test (IIFT) (IgM & IgG) by Euroimmun (Germany) according to the specified protocols and manufacturer’s instructions respectively.
    Anti-SARS
    suggested: None

    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:
    Limitations of this study includes the relatively small number of patients and inconsistent series of sera which ideally should have been collected at a predetermined regular time interval to determine when IgM and IgG can be detected after infection in COVID-19 by these assays. We also did not take into account other factors which could cause the delay in development of antibodies such as immunosuppressive conditions and other treatment modalities that could affect this. However, this study has provided evidence that antibodies to SARS-Cov-2 cross reacts to give positive results in existing SARS-CoV test assays due to the similar structural proteins that it shares with SARS-CoV. The positive predictive value of a serological test depends on the prevalence of the virus and thus in the current situation where there is a recognized outbreak, patients who present with recent compatible symptoms and test positive by these tests are likely to have had exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Serological assays have the advantage in terms of lower set-up costs, capacity for large volume processing, shorter turnaround times, are less prone to specimen sampling quality issues, require lower specific technical skills14, have no risk of specimen contamination, involve handling of lower biohazard risk specimen and expose healthcare workers to lower risk during sampling from patients compared to molecular methods. In conclusion, we provided proof of concept that the available SARS-CoV antibody assays can...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.17.20034454v1 on medRxiv