Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Biomedicines ; 11(2)2023 Feb 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2243109

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the new pathogen SARS-CoV-2 determined a rapid need for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to detect the virus in biological fluids as a rapid tool to identify infected individuals to be treated or quarantined. The majority of commercially available antigenic tests for SARS-CoV-2 rely on the detection of N antigen in biologic fluid using anti-N antibodies, and their capacity to specifically identify subjects infected by SARS-CoV-2 is questionable due to several structural analogies among the N proteins of different coronaviruses. In order to produce new specific antibodies, BALB/c mice were immunized three times at 20-day intervals with a recombinant spike (S) protein. The procedure used was highly efficient, and 40 different specific mAbs were isolated, purified and characterized, with 13 ultimately being selected for their specificity and lack of cross reactivity with other human coronaviruses. The specific epitopes recognized by the selected mAbs were identified through a peptide library and/or by recombinant fragments of the S protein. In particular, the selected mAbs recognized different linear epitopes along the S1, excluding the receptor binding domain, and along the S2 subunits of the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and its major variants of concern. We identified combinations of anti-S mAbs suitable for use in ELISA or rapid diagnostic tests, with the highest sensitivity and specificity coming from proof-of-concept tests using recombinant antigens, SARS-CoV-2 or biological fluids from infected individuals, that represent important additional tools for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

2.
Viruses ; 13(10)2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470995

ABSTRACT

The gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). However, rapid antigen detection kits (Ag-RDTs), may offer advantages over NAAT in mass screening, generating results in minutes, both as laboratory-based test or point-of-care (POC) use for clinicians, at a lower cost. We assessed two different POC Ag-RDTs in mass screening versus NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pediatric patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of IRCCS-Polyclinic of Sant'Orsola, Bologna (from November 2020 to April 2021). All patients were screened with nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA and for antigen tests. Results were obtained from 1146 patients. The COVID-19 Ag FIA kit showed a baseline sensitivity of 53.8% (CI 35.4-71.4%), baseline specificity 99.7% (CI 98.4-100%) and overall accuracy of 80% (95% CI 0.68-0.91); the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag kit, baseline sensitivity of 86.4% (CI 75.0-93.9%), baseline specificity 98.3% (CI 97.1-99.1%) and overall accuracy of 95.3% (95% CI 0.92-0.99). In both tests, some samples showed very low viral load and negative Ag-RDT. This disagreement may reflect the positive inability of Ag-RDTs of detecting antigen in late phase of infection. Among all cases with positive molecular test and negative antigen test, none showed viral loads > 106 copies/mL. Finally, we found one false Ag-RDTs negative result (low cycle thresholds; 9 × 105 copies/mL). Our results suggest that both Ag-RDTs showed good performances in detection of high viral load samples, making it a feasible and effective tool for mass screening in actively infected children.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Viral Load/methods , Antigens, Viral/analysis , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL