Virological and Serological Assessment of US Army Trainees Isolated for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a key mitigation measure to avoid the spread of infection among recruits starting basic combat training in a congregate setting. Because viral nucleic acid can be detected persistently after recovery, we evaluated other laboratory markers to distinguish recruits who could proceed with training from those who were infected. METHODS: Recruits isolated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were serially tested for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic ribonucleic acid (sgRNA), and viral load (VL) by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and for anti- SARS-CoV-2. Cluster and quadratic discriminant analyses of results were performed. RESULTS: Among 229 recruits isolated for COVID-19, those with a RT-PCR cycle threshold >30.49 (sensitivity 95%, specificity 96%) or having sgRNA log10 RNA copies/mL <3.09 (sensitivity and specificity 96%) at entry into isolation were likely SARS-CoV-2 uninfected. Viral load >4.58 log10 RNA copies/mL or anti-SARS-CoV-2 signal-to-cutoff ratio <1.38 (VL: sensitivity and specificity 93%; anti-SARS-CoV-2: sensitivity 83%, specificity 79%) had comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity when used alone for discrimination of infected from uninfected. CONCLUSIONS: Orthogonal laboratory assays used in combination with RT-PCR may have utility in determining SARS-CoV-2 infection status for decisions regarding isolation.

Validation of SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing for surveillance using the Panther Fusion® system: Impact of pool size, automation, and assay chemistry.

Combining diagnostic specimens into pools has been considered as a strategy to augment throughput, decrease turnaround time, and leverage resources. This study utilized a multi-parametric approach to assess optimum pool size, impact of automation, and effect of nucleic acid amplification chemistries on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pooled samples for surveillance testing on the Hologic Panther Fusion® System. Dorfman pooled testing was conducted with previously tested SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples using Hologic's Aptima® and Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 Emergency Use Authorization assays. A manual workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 5:1 (five samples: one positive, four negative) and 10:1. An automated workflow was used to generate pool sizes of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 8:1 and 10:1. The impact of pool size, pooling method, and assay chemistry on sensitivity, specificity, and lower limit of detection (LLOD) was evaluated. Both the Hologic Aptima® and Panther Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assays demonstrated >85% positive percent agreement between neat testing and pool sizes ≤5:1, satisfying FDA recommendation. Discordant results between neat and pooled testing were more frequent for positive samples with CT>35. Fusion® CT (cycle threshold) values for pooled samples increased as expected for pool sizes of 5:1 (CT increase of 1.92-2.41) and 10:1 (CT increase of 3.03-3.29). The Fusion® assay demonstrated lower LLOD than the Aptima® assay for pooled testing (956 vs 1503 cp/mL, pool size of 5:1). Lowering the cut-off threshold of the Aptima® assay from 560 kRLU (manufacturer's setting) to 350 kRLU improved the assay sensitivity to that of the Fusion® assay for pooled testing. Both Hologic's SARS-CoV-2 assays met the FDA recommended guidelines for percent positive agreement (>85%) for pool sizes ≤5:1. Automated pooling increased test throughput and enabled automated sample tracking while requiring less labor. The Fusion® SARS-CoV-2 assay, which demonstrated a lower LLOD, may be more appropriate for surveillance testing.

Evaluation of Antibody-Dependent Fc-Mediated Viral Entry, as Compared With Neutralization, in SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Fc-mediated virus entry has been observed for many viruses, but the characterization of this activity in convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOC) is undefined. In this study, we evaluated Fc-mediated viral entry (FVE) on FcγRIIa-expressing HEK293 cells in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma and compared it with SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization using ACE2-expressing HEK293 cells. The plasma were collected early in the pandemic from 39 individuals. We observed both neutralization and FVE against the infecting Washington SARS-CoV-2 strain for 31% of plasmas, neutralization, but not FVE for 61% of plasmas, and no neutralization or FVE for 8% of plasmas. Neutralization titer correlated significantly with the plasma dilution at which maximum FVE was observed, indicating Fc-mediated uptake peaked as neutralization potency waned. While total Spike-specific plasma IgG levels were similar between plasma that mediated FVE and those that did not, Spike-specific plasma IgM levels were significantly higher in plasma that did not mediate FVE. Plasma neutralization titers against the Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1) and Delta (B.1.617.2) VOC were significantly lower than titers against the Washington strain, while plasma FVE activity against the VOC was either higher or similar. This is the first report to demonstrate a functional shift in convalescent plasma antibodies from neutralizing and FVE-mediating against the earlier Washington strain, to an activity mediating only FVE and no neutralization activity against the emerging VOC, specifically the Beta (B.1.351) and Gamma (P.1) VOC. It will be important to determine the in vivo relevance of these findings.

Serological profiles of pan-coronavirus-specific responses in COVID-19 patients using a multiplexed electro-chemiluminescence-based testing platform.

Serological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 specific responses are an essential tool for determining the prevalence of past SARS-CoV-2 infections in the population especially when testing occurs after symptoms have developed and limited contact tracing is in place. The goal of our study was to test a new 10-plex electro-chemiluminescence-based assay to measure IgM and IgG responses to the spike proteins from multiple human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2, assess the epitope specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response against full-length spike protein, receptor-binding domain and N-terminal domain of the spike protein, and the nucleocapsid protein. We carried out the assay on samples collected from three sample groups: subjects diagnosed with COVID-19 from the U.S. Army hospital at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, South Korea; healthcare administrators from the same hospital but with no reported diagnosis of COVID-19; and pre-pandemic samples. We found that the new CoV-specific multiplex assay was highly sensitive allowing plasma samples to be diluted 1:30,000 with a robust signal. The reactivity of IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and IgM responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could distinguish COVID-19 samples from non-COVID-19 and pre-pandemic samples. The data from the three sample groups also revealed a unique pattern of cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and seasonal coronaviruses HKU1 and OC43. Our findings show that the CoV-2 IgM response is highly specific while the CoV-2 IgG response is more cross-reactive across a range of human CoVs and also showed that IgM and IgG responses show distinct patterns of epitope specificity. In summary, this multiplex assay was able to distinguish samples by COVID-19 status and characterize distinct trends in terms of cross-reactivity and fine-specificity in antibody responses, underscoring its potential value in diagnostic or serosurveillance efforts.