A diagnostic host response biosignature for COVID-19 from RNA profiling of nasal swabs and blood.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), has emerged as the cause of a global pandemic. We used RNA sequencing to analyze 286 nasopharyngeal (NP) swab and 53 whole-blood (WB) samples from 333 patients with COVID-19 and controls. Overall, a muted immune response was observed in COVID-19 relative to other infections (influenza, other seasonal coronaviruses, and bacterial sepsis), with paradoxical down-regulation of several key differentially expressed genes. Hospitalized patients and outpatients exhibited up-regulation of interferon-associated pathways, although heightened and more robust inflammatory responses were observed in hospitalized patients with more clinically severe illness. Two-layer machine learning-based host classifiers consisting of complete (>1000 genes), medium (<100), and small (<20) gene biomarker panels identified COVID-19 disease with 85.1-86.5% accuracy when benchmarked using an independent test set. SARS-CoV-2 infection has a distinct biosignature that differs between NP swabs and WB and can be leveraged for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Magnitude and Kinetics of Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Responses and Their Relationship to Disease Severity.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can be detected indirectly by measuring the host immune response. For some viruses, antibody concentrations correlate with host protection and viral neutralization, but in rare cases, antiviral antibodies can promote disease progression. Elucidation of the kinetics and magnitude of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response is essential to understand the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and identify potential therapeutic targets. METHODS: Sera (n = 533) from patients with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (n = 94 with acute infections and n = 59 convalescent patients) were tested using a high-throughput quantitative immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) assay that detects antibodies to the spike protein receptor binding domain and nucleocapsid protein. Individual and serial samples covered the time of initial diagnosis, during the disease course, and following recovery. We evaluated antibody kinetics and correlation between magnitude of the response and disease severity. RESULTS: Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 antibody production varied considerably. Among 52 patients with 3 or more serial specimens, 44 (84.6%) and 42 (80.8%) had observed IgM and IgG seroconversion at a median of 8 and 10 days, respectively. Compared to those with milder disease, peak measurements were significantly higher for patients admitted to the intensive care unit for all time intervals between 6 and 20 days for IgM, and all intervals after 5 days for IgG. CONCLUSIONS: High-sensitivity assays with a robust dynamic range provide a comprehensive picture of host antibody response to SARS-CoV-2. IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in patients with severe than mild disease. These differences may affect strategies for seroprevalence studies, therapeutics, and vaccine development.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood.

Given the limited availability of serological testing to date, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in different populations has remained unclear. Here, we report very low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in two San Francisco Bay Area populations. Seroreactivity was 0.26% in 387 hospitalized patients admitted for non-respiratory indications and 0.1% in 1,000 blood donors in early April 2020. We additionally describe the longitudinal dynamics of immunoglobulin-G (IgG), immunoglobulin-M (IgM), and in vitro neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19 patients. The median time to seroconversion ranged from 10.3-11.0 days for these 3 assays. Neutralizing antibodies rose in tandem with immunoglobulin titers following symptom onset, and positive percent agreement between detection of IgG and neutralizing titers was >93%. These findings emphasize the importance of using highly accurate tests for surveillance studies in low-prevalence populations, and provide evidence that seroreactivity using SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG and anti-spike IgM assays are generally predictive of in vitro neutralizing capacity.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serology assays reveals a range of test performance.

Appropriate use and interpretation of serological tests for assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure, infection and potential immunity require accurate data on assay performance. We conducted a head-to-head evaluation of ten point-of-care-style lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 5-d time intervals from symptom onset and studied the specificity of each assay in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 specimens. The percent of seropositive individuals increased with time, peaking in the latest time interval tested (>20 d after symptom onset). Test specificity ranged from 84.3% to 100.0% and was predominantly affected by variability in IgM results. LFA specificity could be increased by considering weak bands as negative, but this decreased detection of antibodies (sensitivity) in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR-positive cases. Our results underline the importance of seropositivity threshold determination and reader training for reliable LFA deployment. Although there was no standout serological assay, four tests achieved more than 80% positivity at later time points tested and more than 95% specificity.