Abstract
The pandemic of COVID‐19 has caused enormous fatalities worldwide. Serological assays are important for detection of asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID‐19, and sero‐prevalence and vaccine efficacy studies. Here, we evaluated and compared the performance of seven commercially available enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)s for detection of anti‐severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) immunoglobulin G (IgG). The ELISAs were evaluated with a characterized panel of 100 serum samples from qRT‐PCR confirmed COVID‐19 patients, collected 14 days post onset disease, 100 SARS‐CoV‐2 negative samples and compared the results with that of neutralization assay. Results were analysed by creating the receiver operating characteristic curve of all the assays in reference to the neutralization assay. All kits, were found to be suitable for detection of IgG against SARS‐CoV‐2 with high accuracy. The DiaPro COVID‐19 IgG ELISA showed the highest sensitivity (98%) among the kits. The assays demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting the IgG antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2. However, the presence of IgG antibodies does not always correspond to neutralizing antibodies. Due to their good accuracy indices, these assays can also aid in tracing mild infections, in cohort studies and in pre‐vaccine evaluations.
Keywords: COVID‐19, ELISA, IgG antibody assay, ROC, SARS‐CoV‐2
Abbreviations
- ELISA
enzyme‐linked immunosorbant assay
- PRNT
plaque reduction neutralization test
- ROC curve
receiver operating characteristic curve
1. INTRODUCTION
The corona virus disease of 2019 believed to have been originated in Wuhan, Hubei province in China, is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). 1 , 2 The disease was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and has since infected more than 178 million people and caused over three million fatalities worldwide. 3 The SARS‐CoV‐2 belongs to the Nidovirales order of the Coronaviridae family, which includes SARS‐CoV and MERS‐CoV, which caused outbreaks in 2003 and 2012 respectively.
The SARS‐CoV‐2 causes respiratory infections of varying severity. The most common symptoms include fever, dry cough, tiredness and the more severe symptoms include acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulation disorders, multiorgan dysfunction and central nervous system infection. 3 The diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 is mainly dependent on the detection of viral RNA by real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR). The viral RNA can be detected from 72 h before onset of symptoms 4 to more than 80 days post first detection. 5 , 6 In patients with mild and asymptomatic infection, low PCR positivity rate has been reported in samples collected 8 days after onset of symptoms. 7 As the recent trend indicates an increase in the number of asymptomatic cases, there is a pressing need for serodiagnosis of the SARS‐CoV‐2. IgM and IgG antibodies against the virus can be detected in the serum of the patients as early 4–7 days post onset of disease (POD) 4 , 8 , 9 and up to 95% of infected individuals may show seropositivity after 8 days POD. 10 , 11 , 12 The currently available enzyme immunoassays for the detection of exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 are based on the detection of IgA, IgM, IgG, or total antibodies against the virus. 13 , 14 , 15
The SARS‐CoV‐2 contains four structural proteins—spike (S), nucleocapsid (N), envelope (E) and membrane (M). Of the four proteins, S and N proteins are most immunogenic. 15 While the N protein facilitates viral replication, assembly and release, 15 , 16 the S protein, mediates binding of the virus to the ACE‐2 cellular receptors. The S protein comprises two sub units, S1 and S2, responsible for binding to host cell receptor (ACE‐2) and fusion of cellular and viral membranes respectively. 17 , 18 Majority of the serological assays have S or N proteins as their target antigens.
The serodiagnosis of the SARS‐CoV‐2 is still being explored for accurate and reliable diagnosis. Several ELISAs and other antibody testing assays such as chemiluminescence based immunoassay and lateral flow (rapid diagnostic) assays are now available from different manufacturers. The detection accuracy of IgG ELISA may considerably vary among the test kits, highlighting the need of validation before using them in field settings. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA kits, which can be used to address different requirements. We analysed their performance in correlation to neutralization assay, which is a gold standard in assessing immunity against SARS‐CoV‐2.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Ethical statement
All the samples collected were with informed consent from patients and the study was approved by ICMR‐ NIV Institutional Ethics Committee.
2.2. Sample panel
The test kits were evaluated with a panel of 100 serum specimens from qRT‐PCR confirmed COVID‐19 patients, collected 14 days POD. These samples were tested by the in‐house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) for the presence of antibodies against the SARS‐CoV‐2.
A total of 90 SARS‐CoV‐2 PRNT negative serum samples collected before beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic. An additional 10 samples positive for other respiratory viruses such as human corona virus (HCoV) OC43, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, influenza A(H3N2), parainfluenza virus 4, measles and rubella viruses were included to assess cross‐reactivity.
2.3. Tests performed
The evaluation was performed on seven commercial SARS‐CoV‐2 anti‐IgG ELISAs: COVID Kawach Anti SARS‐CoV‐2 human IgG ELISA (J Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd.); Anti SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG); Aspen SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA (Aspen Laboratories); GA CoV‐2 IgG (Generic Assays [GA], GmbH); COVID‐19 IgG ELISA (Dia.Pro Diagnostic Bioprobes Srl), PANBIO™ SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA (Abbott) and SCoV‐2 Detect™ SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA (InBios International). For conciseness, we refer to the kits by the name of the manufacturer. All the tests were performed according to manufacturer's instructions. Repeat testing of the samples was done only when there were inconclusive/equivocal results obtained. To analyse user/operational variability, every test included 4 intra‐assay and inter‐assay replicates (two positives and two negatives). The test characteristics are compared in Table 1.
Table 1.
Detailed kit specifications for seven commercial ELISA kits
| Sr. No. | Kit manufacturer | Product name | Sample type | Sample dilution | Time to result | No of samples/kit | Antigen type | Country of origin | Nature of assay type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Euroimmun | Anti SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA (IgG) | Serum | 1:101 | 120 min | 93 | Recombinant S1 protein | Germany | Semiquantitative |
| 2 | Abbott | PANBIO SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA | Serum | 1:5 | 120 min | 90 | Recombinant protein | USA | Semiquantitative |
| 3 | J Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. | COVID Kawach Anti SARS‐CoV‐2 Human IgG ELISA | Serum | 1:100 | 130 min | 94 | Inactivated Whole Antigen | India | Qualitative |
| 4 | Generic Assays | GA CoV‐2 IgG | Serum | 1:20 | 105 min | 91 | Recombinant antigen | Germany | Qualitative |
| 5 | Aspen Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. | Aspen SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA | Serum | 1:100 | 80 min | 92 | N protein | India | Qualitative |
| 6 | InBios International Inc. | SCoV‐2 Detect™ SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA | Serum | 1:100 | 110 min | 90 | Not specified | USA | Semiquantitative |
| 7 | DIA. PRO Diagnostic BioProbes Srl | COVID‐19 IgG ELISA | Serum | 1:20 | 105 min | 91 | Recombinant N+S protein | Italy | Qualitative |
Abbreviation: ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.
2.4. Plaque reduction neutralization test
The PRNTs were performed as described by Deshpande et al (2020). 9 Briefly, all the sera were heat inactivated and serially diluted 4‐fold starting at a dilution of 1:10. Further these samples were mixed with an equal amount of virus suspension containing 50–60 plaque‐forming units (PFU) in 0.1 ml. After incubating the mixtures at 37°C for 1 h, each virus‐diluted serum sample (0.1 ml) was inoculated onto a 24‐well tissue culture plate containing a confluent monolayer of Vero CCL‐81 cells. After incubating the plate at 37°C for 60 min, an overlay medium consisting of 2% carboxymethyl cellulose with 2% fetal calf serum in 2× MEM was added to the cell monolayer and the plate was further incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 5 days. Plates were stained with 1% amido black for an hour. Antibody titers were determined as the highest serum dilution that resulted in >50 (PRNT50) reduction in the number of plaques.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was performed by GraphPad Prism 9 and SPSS statistics 20. The coefficient of variation (CV) of the controls were calculated. Intra‐ and inter‐assay precision were analysed to check the repeatability of the tests. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were calculated for all kits by Fischer's exact test. The inter‐rater agreement (Cohen's Kappa coefficient (κ)) of the tests was also calculated. The κ values were interpreted as very good (0.81–1.00), good (0.61–0.80), moderate (0.41–0.60), fair (0.21–0.40) or poor (<0.20). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to check the accuracies of the assays. The resulting antibody titres of the PRNT were calculated with probit analysis.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Assessment of kit controls
The percent coefficient of variation (%CV) for the kit controls (positive and negative) were analysed for all the7 kits. The %CV of all the commercial anti SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG ELISA kits are represented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Performance of kit controls of seven ELISA kits
| Kit | Euroimmun | Abbott | J Mitra COVID Kawach | GA | Aspen | InBios | Dia. Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive controls | 7.81 | 1.38 | 4.94 | 6.82 | 3.32 | 0.56 | 13.33 |
| Negative controls | 3.68 | 4.95 | 3.16 | 0.87 | 13.55 | 5.64 | 12.64 |
Abbreviation: ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.
The Inbios IgG ELISA had the lowest %CV of 0.56 for positive controls whereas GA IgG had a lowest %CV of 0.875 for negative controls indicating high reproducibility. Dia.Pro.'s IgG ELISA had the highest % CV for positive control (13.33) and Aspen IgG showed highest %CV for negative control (13.855). An overall low variation was observed among the negative controls of all the kits. The CV of all the kits were within the limit of acceptance of 15% (Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance for Industry, US Food and Drug Administration, 2018). The overall % CV of Euroimmun, J Mitra, GA, Abbott and InBios was ≤10 indicating good performance of these assays.
3.2. Repeatability assessment of the kits
Inter and intra assay precision for each kit was analysed with 4 serum samples (two positive and two negatives) tested on each run of all the kit manufacturers. Each of these samples was tested in three different kit lots for inter‐assay assessment and four replicates within each plate were taken for intra‐assay precision. The %CV for all the replicates of one kit was calculated to assess the repeatability of the kit (Table 3). The data indicated that, with an exception to two assays, all the assays showed low inter‐ and intra‐assay %CV. While, the Euroimmun IgG showed the least intra‐assay variation (2.491) and GA showed the least inter assay (2.757) variation, Dia.Pro. IgG showed highest variation in the intra assay (17.03) and Aspen IgG showed highest variation in inter assay (12.88).
Table 3.
Precision and repeatability assessment of the commercial ELISA kits
| % CV | Euroimmun | Abbott | J. Mitra COVID Kawach | GA | Aspen | InBios | Dia. Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intra assay | 2.491 | 6.525 | 11.429 | 9.977 | 4.766 | 3.702 | 17.033 |
| Inter assay | 2.888 | 6.239 | 8.364 | 2.757 | 12.881 | 3.979 | 9.295 |
Abbreviation: ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.
3.3. Measures of diagnostic accuracy
The measures of diagnostic accuracy of all the kits were analysed using the panel of 200 specimens (Table 4). For IgG detection, the J. Mitra COVID Kawach IgG ELISA showed 96% sensitivity, whereas the test kits of Euroimmun, Dia.Pro., InBios, Abbott, GA, and Aspen showed sensitivities between 91% and 98%. The DiaPro IgG had the highest sensitivity (98%), whereas, Euroimmun IgG ELISA had the lowest sensitivity of 91%. The specificity for IgG were relatively low (95%) for Euroimmun IgG ELISA, while rest of the assays displayed higher specificities (96%–99%).
Table 4.
Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement of kits compared to confirmed reference results
| Manufacturer | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | PPV % | NPV % | Area under curve | Kappa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspen | 96 | 98 | 97.96 | 96.08 | 0.984 | 0.958 |
| Abbott | 97 | 98 | 97.98 | 97.03 | 0.999 | 0.950 |
| J. Mitra | 96 | 99 | 98.97 | 96.12 | 0.999 | 0.960 |
| Dia. Pro | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 0.999 | 0.977 |
| Euroimmun | 91 | 95 | 94.79 | 91.35 | 0.997 | 0.845 |
| GA | 98 | 97 | 97.03 | 97.98 | 0.988 | 0.911 |
| InBios | 97 | 96 | 96.04 | 96.97 | 0.999 | 0.943 |
Figure 1 represents the distribution of optical density (OD) values of the kits for the testing panel. Within the seven assays, seven assays (J. Mitra, Euroimmun, Abbott, GA, InBios, DiaPro, and Aspen) had consistently negative or low ODs for the negative panel. No cross‐reactivity was observed with sera known to be positive for other respiratory viruses and all gave values below the defined cut‐off point for all kits. Similarly all the assays had OD values in similar range for the positive panel.
Figure 1.
Distribution of OD values yielded by 200 samples in the validation panel. The panel consists of confirmed 100 samples positive in PRNT for SARS‐CoV‐2 and 100 samples which tested negative in the same. OD, optical density; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2
The ROC area under the curve (AUC) measures the accuracy of the assay. The AUC for all the IgG assays were between 0.984 and 0.999 (Table 3 and Figure 2). The Aspen IgG had the lowest (0.984), while the Abbott, J. Mitra, DiaPro, and InBios IgG ELISA kits had the highest AUC of 0.999. The data suggest overall good accuracy of all kits for detection of true positive and true negative samples.
Figure 2.
ROC analysis of the results yielded by the seven test kits. A panel of 200 samples characterized by the neutralization test were tested by all the kits and the results obtained were compared with the results of the neutralization test. ROC, receiver operating characteristic
3.4. Inter rater agreement of the kits
The Cohen's kappa (κ) analysis was performed to understand the inter rater agreement between the test kits and the standard assay. In the evaluation of the agreement, the N+S based DiaPro ELISA had the highest agreement (κ = 0.977) with the standard assay. The whole antigen‐based J. Mitra assay had an agreement 0.960, followed by the N based Aspen (κ = 0.958) and InBios (antigen not specified) assay having κ of 0.943. The recombinant antigen based GA and Abbott ELISA had the κ values of 0.911 and 0.950. The S1 based Euroimmun assay had the agreement (κ) of 0.845. The findings suggest differences in the agreements of the results within the assays based on similar antigen.
3.5. Agreement between the kits
The agreement between the kits was analysed by percent concordance of results for all the kits with each other (Figure 3). The results of individual samples were compared for evaluating concordance. Although the sensitivity and specificity of the assays can be similar, the results for the individual samples may vary. Our results indicated a similar observation. The concordance of InBios and GA with Euroimmun was relatively lower (between 86% and 89%). Rest of the assays showed good agreement with all the assays (between 90% and 99%). The findings also suggest that samples with probable high IgG titers (which yielded high OD values) were detected by all the assays, while results varied among the kits for samples which yielded low OD values (probably containing low levels of IgG). This might indicate variation resulting from the antigen used and the inherent sensitivity of the assay.
Figure 3.
Head on comparison of percent concordant results of each kit. All the kits were compared head on for the concordance of results for the panel of 200 samples. The kit to kit concordance ranged from 86% to 99%
4. DISCUSSION
The nucleic acid detection test is currently the gold standard method for the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, but ELISAs, CLIA and rapid tests for detection of antibodies, might also be useful in for detecting exposure to the virus. In this study, we compared seven ELISA kits for detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG using a well‐characterized panel of 200 samples. The detection of IgG is useful in the sero‐epidemiological studies, and therefore the performance comparison of these kits may guide the contextual use of these assays in the field studies. Euroimmun assay measure IgG antibody response against S protein, J. Mitra assay antibody against inactivated whole protein, DiaPro against a combination of N and S protein and Aspen Lab against N protein. InBios, Abott, and Generic Assays did not provide details of the target antigen used in their assays.
Ease of performance is a distinct advantage of ELISAs. A few manufacturers employed coloured reagents as a pipetting guide in the assay. All the kits detected IgG antibody to the virus in serum. The time required for the assay performance ranged from 80 min (Aspen ELISA) to 130 min (J. Mitra). All the assays allowed testing of more than 90 samples per assay.
All the assays displayed sensitivity and specificity in range of 91%–98% and 95–98%, respectively. The variation in the sensitivity and specificity between the different assays may be attributed to the different assay formats and target antigen. The high negative predictive value of these assays also suggests their usefulness in detection of past infections.
Studies suggest that serum antibody levels against N and S proteins in the COVID‐19 patients tend to increase after 10–17 days post onset of symptoms. 12 , 19 Liu W, et al. 20 reported comparable sensitivities of S and N antigen based ELISAs, which was also observed in our study. The inter kit agreement between the kits are also high suggesting usefulness of the kits in detection of the SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG.
The findings of this study are consistent with similar recent studies which suggest overall good performance of the SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG assays. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 Detailed studies are necessary to evaluate the performance of these assays on samples collected during different phases of infection. Also, cross‐reactivity of the assays should be determined using a larger number of samples positive for closely related viruses.
The results of this study may guide the use of various commercial assays in the field studies and help in public health decisions related to COVID‐19. We are also studying the antibody responses to different antigens and emergence of antibodies against different viral proteins, which will help in understanding the response curve as well as to formulate a serological testing algorithm for detection of antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2.
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the antibody tests have an important role in diagnosis and add value to the molecular diagnosis. This study provides background for the utility of these commercial IgG assays in screening, contact tracing and sero‐prevalence studies for the SARS‐CoV‐2. The assays evaluated were highly specific and sensitive in detecting the IgG antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2. However, it is also to be kept in mind that the presence of IgG antibodies does not always correspond to neutralizing antibodies. Due to their high sensitivity and specificity, these assays can be readily used in tracing those who had asymptomatic/mild infections, in longitudinal studies and in vaccine studies.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: Gajanan Sapkal, Ketki Deshpande, Ullas PT, Priya Abraham. Analysis of data: Ketki Deshpande, Gajanan Sapkal, Aparana Rakhe; Ojas Kaduskar, Varsha Potdar, Pragya D. Yadav, Gururaj Deshpande. Sample collection and methodology: Gurav YK, Bipin Tilekar, Ketki Deshpande, Ojas Kaduskar, Aparana Rakhe, Sanskruti Saka, Kshitija Gadekar, Roshni Patil, Shankar Vidhate, Kirti Khutwad. Writing, review and editing: Ketki Deshpande, Gajanan Sapkal, Ullas PT, Neetu Vijay, Harmanmeet Kaur, Priya Abraham, Pragya D. Yadav; Gururaj Deshpande. Supervision: Gajanan Sapkal, Priya Abraham, Varsha Potdar, Neetu Vijay, Priyanka Gupta, Harmanmeet Kaur, and Jitendra Narayan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors acknowledge the encouragement and support extended by Prof. (Dr) Balram Bhargava, Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Director‐General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi. We are grateful to Dr. Nivedita Gupta, Scientist F & In‐charge Virology Unit, Division of ECD, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi for her support. We thank Mr. Prasad Gomade, Ms. Snehal Shingade, and Ms. Kajal Jarande for providing excellent technical support. This work was supported by the ICMR‐NIV, Pune.
Deshpande K, PT U, Kaduskar O, et al. Performance assessment of seven SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. J Med Virol. 2021;93:6696‐6702. 10.1002/jmv.27251
Ketki Deshpande and Ullas PT contributed equally.
Gajanan Sapkal and Priya Abraham contributed equally.
Contributor Information
Gajanan Sapkal, Email: gajanansapkalniv@gmail.com.
Priya Abraham, Email: priya.abraham@icmr.gov.in.
REFERENCES
- 1. Wahba L, Jain N, Fire AZ, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579(7798):270‐273. 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Lai C‐C, Shih T‐P, Ko W‐C, Tang H‐J, Hsueh P‐R. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19): the epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(3):105924. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. World Health Organization . WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID‐19) Dashboard. Available at https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed on 24th June 2021.
- 4. Jiang C, Wang Y, Hu M, et al. Antibody seroconversion in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Clin Transl Immunol. 2020;9(9):e1182. 10.1002/cti2.1182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Li N, Wang X, Lv T. Prolonged SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA shedding: not a rare phenomenon. J Med Virol. 2020;92(11):2286‐2287. 10.1002/jmv.25952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Turner JS, Day A, Alsoussi WB, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 viral RNA shedding for more than 87 days in an individual with an impaired CD8+ T cell response. Front Immunol. 2021;11(January):1‐7. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.618402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Cevik M, Tate M, Lloyd O, Maraolo AE, Schafers J, Ho A. SARS‐CoV‐2, SARS‐CoV, and MERS‐CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Microbe. 2021;2(1):e13‐e22. 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30172-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Carrillo J, Izquierdo‐Useros N, Ávila‐Nieto C, Pradenas E, Clotet B, Blanco J. Humoral immune responses and neutralizing antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2; implications in pathogenesis and protective immunity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2021;538:187‐191. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.10.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Deshpande GR, Sapkal GN, Tilekar BN, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 in COVID‐19 patients. Indian J Med Res. 2020;152(1 & 2):82‐87. 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2382_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Long Q‐X, Liu B‐Z, Deng H‐J, et al. Antibody responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 in patients with COVID‐19. Nat Med. 2020;26(6):845‐848. 10.1038/s41591-020-0897-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Xu X, Sun J, Nie S, et al. Seroprevalence of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 in China. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1193‐1195. 10.1038/s41591-020-0949-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ojeda DS, Gonzalez Lopez Ledesma MM, Pallarés HM, et al. Emergency response for evaluating SARS‐CoV‐2 immune status, seroprevalence and convalescent plasma in Argentina. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(1):1‐18. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Catry E, Jacqmin H, Dodemont M, et al. Analytical and clinical evaluation of four commercial SARS‐CoV‐2 serological immunoassays in hospitalized patients and ambulatory individuals. J Virol Methods. 2021;289:114060. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.114060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Li C, Zhao C, Bao J, Tang B, Wang Y, Gu B. Laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). Clin Chim Acta. 2020;510:35‐46. 10.1016/j.cca.2020.06.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kontou PI, Braliou GG, Dimou NL, Nikolopoulos G, Bagos PG. Antibody tests in detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: a meta‐analysis. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;10(5):319. 10.3390/diagnostics10050319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Zeng W, Liu G, Ma H, et al. Biochemical characterization of SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid protein. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;527(3):618‐623. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Wang Q, Zhang Y, Wu L, et al. Structural and functional basis of SARS‐CoV‐2 entry by using human ACE2. Cell. 2020;181(4):894‐904.e9. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Walls AC, Park Y‐J, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler D. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181(2):281‐292. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Wu J‐L, Tseng W‐P, Lin C‐H, et al. Four point‐of‐care lateral flow immunoassays for diagnosis of COVID‐19 and for assessing dynamics of antibody responses to SARS‐CoV‐2. J Infect. 2020;81(3):435‐442. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.06.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Liu W, Liu L, Kou G, et al. Evaluation of nucleocapsid and spike protein‐based enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(6):e00461‐20. 10.1128/JCM.00461-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kohmer N, Westhaus S, Rühl C, Ciesek S, Rabenau HF. Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests. J Med Virol. 2020;92(10):2243‐2247. 10.1002/jmv.26145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Serrano MM, Rodríguez DN, Palop NT, et al. Comparison of commercial lateral flow immunoassays and ELISA for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody detection. J Clin Virol Off Publ Pan Am Soc Clin Virol. 2020;129:104529. 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Krüttgen A, Cornelissen CG, Dreher M, Hornef M, Imöhl M, Kleines M. Comparison of four new commercial serologic assays for determination of SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG. J Clin Virol. 2020;128:104394. 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Trabaud M‐A, Icard V, Milon M‐P, Bal A, Lina B, Escuret V. Comparison of eight commercial, high‐throughput, automated or ELISA assays detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG or total antibody. J Clin Virol Off Publ Pan Am Soc Clin Virol. 2020;132:104613. 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Okba NMA, Müller MA, Li W, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2‐specific antibody responses in coronavirus disease patients. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7):1478‐1488. 10.3201/eid2607.200841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Miler M, Štefanović M, Šamija I, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for eight sars‐cov‐2 serological assays. Biochem Medica. 2021;31(1):1‐13. 10.11613/BM.2021.010708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Nilsson AC, Holm DK, Justesen US, et al. Comparison of six commercially available SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays‐Choice of assay depends on intended use. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;103:381‐388. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Tré‐Hardy M, Wilmet A, Beukinga I, et al. Analytical and clinical validation of an ELISA for specific SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies. J Med Virol. 2021;93(2):803‐811. 10.1002/jmv.26303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]