ABSTRACT
Since SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, the resulting pandemic has paralyzed the economic and cultural life of the world. Variants of concern (VOC) strongly increase pressure on public health systems. Rapid, easy-to-use, and cost-effective assays are essential to manage the pandemic. Here we present a bioinformatical approach for the fast and efficient design of two innovative serological Particle Enhanced Turbidimetric Immunoassays (PETIA) to quantify the SARS-CoV-2 immunoresponse. To confirm bioinformatical assumptions, an S-RBD- and a Nucleocapsid-based PETIA were produced. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for 95 patient samples using a BioMajesty™ fully automated analyzer. The S-RBD-based PETIA showed necessary specificity (98%) over the N protein-based PETIA (21%). Further, the reactivity and cross-reactivity of the RBD-based PETIA towards variant-derived antibodies of SARS-CoV-2 were assessed by a quenching inhibition test. The inhibition kinetics of the S-RBD variants Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Kappa, and Omicron were evaluated. In summary, we showed that specific and robust PETIA immunoassays can be rapidly designed and developed. The quantification of the SARS-CoV-2-related immunoresponse of variants (Alpha to Kappa) is possible using specific RBD assays. In contrast, Omicron revealed lower cross-reactivity (approx. 50%). To ensure the quantification of the Omicron variant, modified immunoassays appear to be necessary.
ABSTRACT
Background: Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been keeping the world in suspense. Rapid tests, molecular diagnosis of acute infections, and vaccination campaigns with vaccines are building blocks of strategic pandemic control worldwide. For laboratory diagnostics, the quantification of the antibody titer of convalescents and vaccinated patients is thus increasingly coming to the fore. Methods: Here we present an evaluation on the comparability of five serological tests on a cohort of 13 patients with mild COVID-19 disease. Also participants who were vaccinated after recovery were included in this study. All common immune methods (ELISA, CLIA, PETIA) and SARS-CoV-2 specific antigens (N-, S1- and RBD-) were specifically tracked and directly compared for up to 455 days. The titer of recovered participants was also set to the degree of symptoms during infection and the occurrence of Long-COVID. In addition, relative comparability of different serological tests, all standardized to WHO, was set in reference to the neutralizing potential of the corresponding participants. Findings: The individual immune responses over 455 days after a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection remain stable, in contrast to vaccinated participants. All sero-tests reveal comparable performance and dynamics during the study and compared well to a surrogate neutralization test. Conclusion: The information presented here will help clinicians in the daily laboratory work in the selection and evaluation of different serological tests offered. The data also will support in respect of a sero-test-based neutralization cutoff.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeABSTRACT
Background Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been keeping the world in suspense. Rapid tests, molecular diagnosis of acute infections, and vaccination campaigns with vaccines are building blocks of strategic pandemic control worldwide. For laboratory diagnostics, the quantification of the antibody titer of convalescents and vaccinated patients is thus increasingly coming to the fore. Methods Here we present an evaluation on the comparability of five serological tests on a cohort of 13 patients with mild COVID-19 disease. Also participants who were vaccinated after recovery were included in this study. All common immune methods (ELISA, CLIA, PETIA) and SARS-CoV-2 specific antigens (N-, S1- and RBD-) were specifically tracked and directly compared for up to 455 days. The titer of recovered participants was also set to the degree of symptoms during infection and the occurrence of Long-COVID. In addition, relative comparability of different serological tests, all standardized to WHO, was set in reference to the neutralizing potential of the corresponding participants. Findings The individual immune responses over 455 days after a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection remain stable, in contrast to vaccinated participants. All sero-tests reveal comparable performance and dynamics during the study and compared well to a surrogate neutralization test. Conclusion The information presented here will help clinicians in the daily laboratory work in the selection and evaluation of different serological tests offered. The data also will support in respect of a sero-test-based neutralization cutoff.
ABSTRACT
In addition to the national pandemic plan to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is stipulated that the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) provides information on coronavirus SARS-CoV2 for the general population via a subpage of www.infektionsschutz.de . In particular, the informational material should contain answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ) as well as behavioural recommendations for prevention.This article describes how information content is created ad hoc in the form of FAQ and why these FAQ are significant for crisis communication. The evolution of the FAQ from a simple information instrument to an inter-institutional rapid reaction tool in the context of risk communication on COVID-19 becomes clear. Close cooperation between the authorities is required to ensure that information is provided in a congruent and up-to-date manner. The work and coordination processes as well as various update procedures are presented. Theoretical implications for crisis communication and crisis management can be derived from the work processes described and assessed.These processes can be taken up by other institutions as examples of good practice and, if necessary, further developed and/or transferred to other contexts.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communication , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
In 2019, a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan in the province of Hubei, China. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread across the globe, causing the neoteric COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is commonly transmitted by droplet infection and aerosols when coughing or sneezing, as well as high-risk exposures to infected individuals by face-to-face contact without protective gear. To date, a broad variety of techniques have emerged to assess and quantify the specific antibody response of a patient towards a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we report the first comprehensive comparison of five different assay systems: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA), Electro-Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA), and a new Particle-Enhanced Turbidimetric Immunoassay (PETIA) for SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we also evaluated the suitability of N-, S1- and RBD-antigens for quantifying the SARS-CoV-2 specific immune response. Linearity and precision, overall sensitivity and specificity of the assays, stability of samples, and cross-reactivity of general viral responses, as well as common coronaviruses, were assessed. Moreover, the reactivity of all tests to seroconversion and different sample matrices was quantified. All five assays showed good overall agreement, with 76% and 87% similarity for negative and positive samples, respectively. In conclusion, all evaluated methods showed a high consistency of results and suitability for the robust quantification of the SARS-CoV-2-derived immune response.