ABSTRACT
Immunogenic peptides that mimic linear B-cell epitopes coupled with immunoassay validation may improve serological tests for emerging diseases. This study reports a general approach for profiling linear B-cell epitopes derived from SARS-CoV-2 using an in-silico method and peptide microarray immunoassay, using healthcare workers' SARS-CoV-2 sero-positive sera. SARS-CoV-2 was tested using rapid chromatographic immunoassays and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Immunogenic peptides mimicking linear B-cell epitopes were predicted in-silico using ABCpred. Peptides with the lowest sequence identity with human protein and proteins from other human pathogens were selected using the NCBI Protein BLAST. IgG and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, membrane glycoprotein and nucleocapsid derived peptides were measured in sera using peptide microarray immunoassay. Fifty-three healthcare workers included in the study were RT-PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. Using rapid chromatographic immunoassays, 10 were SARS-CoV-2 IgM sero-positive and 7 were SARS-CoV-2 IgG sero-positive. From a total of 10 SARS-CoV-2 peptides contained on the microarray, 3 (QTH34388.1-1-14, QTN64908.1-135-148, and QLL35955.1-22-35) showed reactivity against IgG. Three peptides (QSM17284.1-76-89, QTN64908.1-135-148 and QPK73947.1-8-21) also showed reactivity against IgM. Based on the results we predicted one peptide (QSM17284.1-76-89) that had an acceptable diagnostic performance. Peptide QSM17284.1-76-89 was able to detect IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 with area under the curve (AUC) 0.781 when compared to commercial antibody tests. In conclusion in silico peptide prediction and peptide microarray technology may provide a platform for the development of serological tests for emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. However, we recommend using at least three in-silico peptide prediction tools to improve the sensitivity and specificity of B-cell epitope prediction, to predict peptides with excellent diagnostic performances.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Serological testing based on different antibody types are an alternative method being used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 and has the potential of having higher diagnostic accuracy compared to the current gold standard rRT-PCR. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of IgG and IgM based point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), fluorescence enzyme-linked immunoassay (FIA) and ELISA systems that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens. METHOD: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Medline complete and MedRxiv. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were performed by two authors independently. QUADAS-2 checklist tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve model were performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the serological tests. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to explore the heterogeneity. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 17), IgM (n = 16) and IgG-IgM (n = 24) based LFIA tests were 0.5856, 0.4637 and 0.6886, respectively compared to rRT-PCR method. The pooled sensitivity for IgG (n = 9) and IgM (n = 10) based CLIA tests were 0.9311 and 0.8516, respectively compared to rRT-PCR. The pooled sensitivity the IgG (n = 10), IgM (n = 11) and IgG-IgM (n = 5) based ELISA tests were 0.8292, 0.8388 and 0.8531 respectively compared to rRT-PCR. All tests displayed high specificities ranging from 0.9693 to 0.9991. Amongst the evaluated tests, IgG based CLIA expressed the highest sensitivity signifying its accurate detection of the largest proportion of infections identified by rRT-PCR. ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity compared to LFIA. IgG based tests performed better compared to IgM except for the ELISA. CONCLUSIONS: We report that IgG-IgM based ELISA tests have the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type independently. Given the poor performances of the current LFIA devices, there is a need for more research on the development of highly sensitivity and specific POC LFIA that are adequate for most individual patient applications and attractive for large sero-prevalence studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179112.