ViralFlow: A Versatile Automated Workflow for SARS-CoV-2 Genome Assembly, Lineage Assignment, Mutations and Intrahost Variant Detection.

The COVID-19 pandemic is driven by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged in 2019 and quickly spread worldwide. Genomic surveillance has become the gold standard methodology used to monitor and study this fast-spreading virus and its constantly emerging lineages. The current deluge of SARS-CoV-2 genomic data generated worldwide has put additional pressure on the urgent need for streamlined bioinformatics workflows. Here, we describe a workflow developed by our group to process and analyze large-scale SARS-CoV-2 Illumina amplicon sequencing data. This workflow automates all steps of SARS-CoV-2 reference-based genomic analysis: data processing, genome assembly, PANGO lineage assignment, mutation analysis and the screening of intrahost variants. The pipeline is capable of processing a batch of around 100 samples in less than half an hour on a personal laptop or in less than five minutes on a server with 50 threads. The workflow presented here is available through Docker or Singularity images, allowing for implementation on laptops for small-scale analyses or on high processing capacity servers or clusters. Moreover, the low requirements for memory and CPU cores and the standardized results provided by ViralFlow highlight it as a versatile tool for SARS-CoV-2 genomic analysis.

A mass spectrometry-based targeted assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen from clinical specimens.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has overwhelmed health systems worldwide and highlighted limitations of diagnostic testing. Several types of diagnostic tests including RT-PCR-based assays and antigen detection by lateral flow assays, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, have been developed and deployed in a short time. METHODS: Here, we describe an immunoaffinity purification approach followed a by high resolution mass spectrometry-based targeted qualitative assay capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen from nasopharyngeal swab samples. Based on our discovery experiments using purified virus, recombinant viral protein and nasopharyngeal swab samples from COVID-19 positive patients, nucleocapsid protein was selected as a target antigen. We then developed an automated antibody capture-based workflow coupled to targeted high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) - parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) assay on an Orbitrap Exploris 480 mass spectrometer. An ensemble machine learning-based model for determining COVID-19 positive samples was developed using fragment ion intensities from the PRM data. FINDINGS: The optimized targeted assay, which was used to analyze 88 positive and 88 negative nasopharyngeal swab samples for validation, resulted in 98% (95% CI = 0.922-0.997) (86/88) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI = 0.958-1.000) (88/88) specificity using RT-PCR-based molecular testing as the reference method. INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrate that direct detection of infectious agents from clinical samples by tandem mass spectrometry-based assays have potential to be deployed as diagnostic assays in clinical laboratories, which has hitherto been limited to analysis of pure microbial cultures. FUNDING: This study was supported by DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Margdarshi Fellowship grant IA/M/15/1/502023 awarded to AP and the generosity of Eric and Wendy Schmidt.

Evaluation of two automated low-cost RNA extraction protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

BACKGROUND: Two automatable in-house protocols for high-troughput RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection have been evaluated. METHODS: One hundred forty one SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were collected during a period of 10-days. In-house protocols were based on extraction with magnetic beads and designed to be used with either the Opentrons OT-2 (OT-2in-house) liquid handling robot or the MagMAXTM Express-96 system (MMin-house). Both protocols were tested in parallel with a commercial kit that uses the MagMAXTM system (MMkit). Nucleic acid extraction efficiencies were calculated from a SARS-CoV-2 DNA positive control. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between both in-house protocols and the commercial kit in their performance to detect positive samples. The MMkit was the most efficient although the MMin-house presented, in average, lower Cts than the other two. In-house protocols allowed to save between 350€ and 400€ for every 96 extracted samples compared to the commercial kit. CONCLUSION: The protocols described harness the use of easily available reagents and an open-source liquid handling system and are suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection in high throughput facilities.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test.

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary means of identifying acute infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Accurate and fast test results may permit more efficient use of protective and isolation resources and allow rapid therapeutic interventions. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test, a rapid, automated molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity and specificity/interference were assessed with infectious SARS-CoV-2; other infectious coronavirus species, including SARS-CoV; and 85 nasopharyngeal swab specimens positive for other respiratory viruses, including endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs). Clinical performance was assessed using 483 remnant upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens previously analyzed by standard-of-care (SOC) NAATs. The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml. Other hCoVs, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, were not detected by the Xpert test. SARS-CoV, a closely related species in the subgenus Sarbecovirus, was detected by a broad-range target (E) but was distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-specific N2 target). Compared to SOC NAATs, the positive agreement of the Xpert test was 219/220 (99.5%), and the negative agreement was 250/261 (95.8%). A third tie-breaker NAAT resolved all but three of the discordant results in favor the Xpert test. The Xpert test provided sensitive and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a variety of upper- and lower-respiratory-tract specimens. The high sensitivity and short time to results of approximately 45 min may impact patient management.

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Two RT-qPCR Protocols for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Performed in an Automated Workflow.

WHO declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. The establishment of standardized RT-qPCR protocols for respiratory secretions testing, as well as sharing of specimens, data, and information became critical. Here, we investigate the analytical performance of two interim RT-qPCR protocols (Charité and Centers for Disease Control (CDC)) for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 executed in a fully automated platform. Analytical specificity, PCR amplification efficiency, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection), and cross-reactivity were evaluated using contrived samples. The on-going accuracy was evaluated by retrospective analysis of our test results database (real clinical samples). N1, E, and a modified version of RdRP assays presented adequate analytical specificity, amplification efficiency, and analytical sensitivity using contrived samples. The three assays were applied to all individuals who requested the SARS-CoV-2 molecular test assay in our laboratory and it was observed that N1 gave more positive results than E, and E gave more positive results than RdRP (modified). The RdRP and E were removed from the test and its final version, based on N1 assay only, was applied to 30,699 Brazilian individuals (from 19 February 2020 to 8 May 2020). The aggregated test results available in the database were also presented.

Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of the Automated Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay on the Roche cobas e602 Analyzer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the automated Elecsys anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody (Elecsys Ab) assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. With the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, widespread and routine serologic testing of SARS-CoV-2 remains a pressing need. To better understand its epidemiologic spread and to support policies aimed at curtailing further infections, reliable serologic testing is crucial for providing insight into the dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 on a population level. METHODS: The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in polymerase chain reaction-positive, confirmed COVID-19 patient samples was determined using the Elecsys Ab assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. The precision and cross-reactivity of the Elecsys Ab assay were characterized and its performance was compared against the EuroImmun IgA/IgG antibody (EuroImmun Ab) assay. Calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were assessed. RESULTS: The Elecsys Ab assay demonstrated good precision, had no cross-reactivity with other viral samples, and showed 100% concordance with the EuroImmun Ab assay. Excellent clinical performance with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The Elecsys Ab assay is a precise and highly reliable automated platform for clinical detection of seropositivity in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Performance of six SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in comparison with microneutralisation.

There is an urgent need for reliable high-throughput serological assays for the management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Preferably, the performance of serological tests for a novel virus should be determined with clinical specimens against a gold standard, i.e. virus neutralisation. We compared the performance of six commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-COV-2 IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies, including four automated assays [Abbott SARS-COV-2 IgG (CE marked), Diasorin Liaison® SARS-COV-2 S1/S2 IgG (research use only, RUO), and Euroimmun SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgA (CE marked)], and two rapid lateral flow (immunocromatographic) tests [Acro Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM (CE marked) and Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology SARS-COV-2 IgG/IgM (CE marked)] with a microneutralisation test (MNT). Two specimen panels from serum samples sent to Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB) were compiled: the patient panel (N=70) included sera from PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, and the negative panel (N=81) included sera sent for screening of autoimmune diseases and respiratory virus antibodies in 2018 and 2019. The MNT was carried out for all COVID-19 samples (70 serum samples, 62 individuals) and for 53 samples from the negative panel. Forty-one out of 62 COVID-19 patients showed neutralising antibodies.The specificity and sensitivity values of the commercial tests against MNT, respectively, were as follows: 95.1 %/80.5 % (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 94.9 %/43.8 % (Diasorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 IgG; RUO), 68.3 %/87.8 % (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA), 86.6 %/70.7 % (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 74.4 %/56.1 % (Acro 2019-nCoV IgG), 69.5 %/46.3 % (Acro 2019-nCoV IgM), 97.5 %/71.9 % (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgG), and 88.8 %/81.3 % (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgM). This study shows variable performance values. Laboratories should carefully consider their testing process, such as a two-tier approach, in order to optimize the overall performance of SARS- CoV-2 serodiagnostics.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech).

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 has promoted the development of new serological tests that could be complementary to RT-PCR. Nevertheless, the assessment of clinical performances of available tests is urgently required as their use has just been initiated for diagnose. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: Two automated immunoassays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19) were tested. 293 specimens were analyzed from patients with a positive RT-PCR response, from patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but exhibiting a negative response to the RT-PCR detection test, and from control group specimens. Days since symptoms onset were collected from clinical information sheet associated with respiratory tract samples. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity for IgG was equivalent (around 80 %) for CLIA, ELISA and LFIA. Sensitivity for IgG detection, >14 days after onset of symptoms, was 100.0 % for all assays. Overall specificity for IgG was greater for CLIA and LFIA (more than 98 %) compared to ELISA (95.8 %). Specificity was significantly different between IgA ELISA (78.9 %) and IgM LFIA (95.8 %) (p < 0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; k = 0.936). CONCLUSION: Excellent sensitivity for IgG detection was obtained >14 days after onset of symptoms for all immunoassays. Specificity was also excellent for IgG CLIA and IgG LFIA. Our study shows that NG-Test® is reliable and accurate for routine use in clinical laboratories.

Brief clinical evaluation of six high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assays.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are urgently needed for diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how recently commercially available, high-throughput immunoassays, using different recombinant SARS-CoV-2 antigens, perform with clinical samples. Focusing on IgG and total antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of four automated immunoassays (Abbott Architect™ i2000 (N protein-based)), Roche cobas™ e 411 analyzer (N protein-based, not differentiating between IgA, IgM or IgG antibodies), LIAISON®XL platform (S1 and S2 protein-based), VIRCLIA® automation system (S1 and N protein-based) in comparison to two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S1 protein-based) and Virotech SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA (N protein-based)) and an in-house developed plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. When calculating the overall sensitivity, in a time frame of 49 days after first PCR-positivity, the PRNT as gold standard, showed the highest sensitivity with 93.3% followed by the dual-target assay for the VIRCLIA® automation system with 89%. The overall sensitivity in the group of N protein-based assays ranged from 66.7 to 77.8% and in the S protein-based-assays from 71.1 to 75.6%. Five follow-up samples of three individuals were only detected in either an S and/or N protein-based assay, indicating an individual different immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the influence of the used assay in the detection of IgG antibodies. This should be further analysed. The specificity of the examined assays was ≥ 97%. However, because of the low or unknown prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the examined assays in this study are currently primarily eligible for epidemiological investigations, as they have limited information in individual testing.

Validation and verification of the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay analytical and clinical performance.

BACKGROUND: High-throughput assays for the SARS-CoV-2 virus are critical to increasing test capacity and slowing the spread of COVID-19. Abbott Molecular developed and received emergency use authorization (EUA) to deploy the new RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay, run on the automated m2000sp/rt system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate analytical and clinical performance of the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay compared to the SARS-CoV-2 CDC-based laboratory developed test (LDT) in clinical use by the University of Washington Clinical Virology Laboratory (UW Virology). METHODS: RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay limit of detection (LOD) was evaluated by testing two dilution panels of 60 replicates each. Cross-reactivity was evaluated by testing 24 clinical samples positive for various non‒SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses. Clinical performance was evaluated using 30 positive and 30 negative SARS-CoV-2 clinical samples previously tested using the UW Virology SARS-CoV-2 LDT. RESULTS: Exceeding the 100 copies/mL LOD reported in the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay EUA product insert, 19 of 20 replicates were detected at 50 copies/mL and 16 of 20 replicates were detected at 25 copies/mL. All clinical samples positive for 24 non‒SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses were SARS-CoV-2 negative on the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay. The assay had high sensitivity (93%) and specificity (100%) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. Two positive samples that tested negative with the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay had cycle numbers of 35.94 or greater and required dilution prior to testing. One of these samples was also inconclusive on the SARS-CoV-2 LDT. CONCLUSION: The RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay is acceptable for clinical use. With the high-throughput, fully automated m2000 system, this assay will accelerate the pace of SARS-CoV-2 testing.