ABSTRACT
Recently, numerous diagnostic approaches from different disciplines have been developed for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis to monitor and control the COVID-19 pandemic. These include MS-based assays, which provide analytical information on viral proteins. However, their sensitivity is limited, estimated to be 5 × 104 PFU/ml in clinical samples. Here, we present a reliable, specific, and rapid method for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens, which combines virus capture followed by LC-MS/MS(MRM) analysis of unique peptide markers. The capture of SARS-CoV-2 from the challenging matrix, prior to its tryptic digestion, was accomplished by magnetic beads coated with polyclonal IgG-α-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, enabling sample concentration while significantly reducing background noise interrupting with LC-MS analysis. A sensitive and specific LC-MS/MS(MRM) analysis method was developed for the identification of selected tryptic peptide markers. The combined assay, which resulted in S/N ratio enhancement, achieved an improved sensitivity of more than 10-fold compared with previously described MS methods. The assay was validated in 29 naive NP specimens, 19 samples were spiked with SARS-CoV-2 and 10 were used as negative controls. Finally, the assay was successfully applied to clinical NP samples (n = 26) pre-determined as either positive or negative by RT-qPCR. This work describes for the first time a combined approach for immuno-magnetic viral isolation coupled with MS analysis. This method is highly reliable, specific, and sensitive; thus, it may potentially serve as a complementary assay to RT-qPCR, the gold standard test. This methodology can be applied to other viruses as well.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Chromatography, Liquid/methods , Immunomagnetic Separation/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/methods , Amino Acid Sequence , Antibodies, Viral/chemistry , Biomarkers/chemistry , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing/instrumentation , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Chromatography, Liquid/instrumentation , Chromatography, Liquid/standards , Humans , Immunomagnetic Separation/instrumentation , Immunomagnetic Separation/standards , Nasopharynx/virology , Peptides/chemistry , Peptides/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/instrumentation , Tandem Mass Spectrometry/standardsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Fast, accurate, and simple blood-based assays for quantification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed to identify infected individuals and keep track of the spread of disease. METHODS: The study included 33 plasma samples from 20 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and 40 non-COVID-19 plasma samples. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM)/immunoglobulin A (IgA) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were detected by a microfluidic quantitative immunomagnetic assay (IMA) (ViroTrack Sero COVID IgM + IgA/IgG Ab, Blusense Diagnostics) and compared to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EuroImmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika). RESULTS: Of the 33 plasma samples from the COVID-19 patients, 28 were positive for IgA/IgM or IgG by IMA and 29 samples were positive by ELISA. Sensitivity for only one sample per patient was 68% for IgA + IgM and 75% IgG by IMA and 80% by ELISA. For samples collected 14 days after symptom onset, the sensitivity of both IMA and ELISA was around 91%. The specificity of the IMA reached 100% compared to 95% for ELISA IgA and 97.5% for ELISA IgG. CONCLUSION: IMA for COVID-19 is a rapid simple-to-use point-of-care test with sensitivity and specificity similar to a commercial ELISA.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunomagnetic Separation/methods , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin A/isolation & purification , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/isolation & purification , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/isolation & purification , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Multiplexed bead-based assays that use Luminex® xMAP® technology have become popular for measuring antibodies against proteins of interest in many fields, including malaria and more recently SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. There are currently two formats that are widely used: non-magnetic beads or magnetic beads. Data are lacking regarding the comparability of results obtained using these two types of beads, and for assays run on different instruments. Whilst non-magnetic beads can only be run on flow-based instruments (such as the Luminex® 100/200™ or Bio-Plex® 200), magnetic beads can be run on both these and the newer MAGPIX® instruments. In this study we utilized a panel of purified recombinant Plasmodium vivax proteins and samples from malaria-endemic areas to measure P. vivax-specific IgG responses using different combinations of beads and instruments. We directly compared: i) non-magnetic versus magnetic beads run on a Bio-Plex® 200, ii) magnetic beads run on the Bio-Plex® 200 versus MAGPIX® and iii) non-magnetic beads run on a Bio-Plex® 200 versus magnetic beads run on the MAGPIX®. We also performed an external comparison of our optimized assay. We observed that IgG antibody responses, measured against our panel of P. vivax proteins, were moderately-strongly correlated in all three of our comparisons (pearson r>0.5 for 18/19 proteins), however higher amounts of protein were required for coupling to magnetic beads. Our external comparison indicated that results generated in different laboratories using the same coupled beads are also highly comparable (pearson r>0.7), particularly if a reference standard curve is used.