Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019\nCoV) by real\time RT\PCR. sensitivities varied largely between assays, reflecting their respective purposes. The sensitivities of IgA and IgM assays were the highest between 11 and 20 dpso, whereas the sensitivities of IgG assays peaked between 20 and 60 dpso. Rabbit Polyclonal to CDH24 IIFT showed the highest sensitivities due to the use of the whole SARS\CoV\2 as substrate and provided information on whether or not the individual has been infected with SARS\CoV\2. Enzyme\linked immunosorbent assays provided further information about both the prevalence and concentration of specific antibodies against selected antigens of SARS\CoV\2. females, males, unknown) samples in panel samples per patient (mean??sample 10 dpso samples 11C20 dpso samples 21C60 dpso sample >60 dpso samples in Panel A: 10, Panel B: 19), 21C60 dpso (intermediate phase of contamination; n samples in Panel A: 28, Panel B: 3) and >60 dpso (past infection; n samples in Panel A: 43, Panel B: 6, Table?1). The overall agreement between the qualitative results Meticrane obtained with the anti\SARS\CoV\2 ELISA (IgG) and Anti\SARS\CoV\2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) was calculated, their degree of agreement was Meticrane quantified using Cohen’s including borderline results, 18 and the statistical association between results was explained using Pearson correlation and 95% confidence intervals as determined by Clopper\Pearson interval. 3.?RESULTS The sensitivities varied largely between assays (Table?2). The IIFT revealed positive results for anti\SARS\CoV\2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in 94.6%, 72.9%, and 65.9% of the patient samples, respectively. As a major part of samples in the panels, A?+?B was taken in the late phase of infection, the overall prevalence of IgM antibodies (representing the acute phase response) is lower than that of IgG. The ELISAs detected specific antibodies against S1 IgG and IgA in 75.8% and 80.3% of the patient samples, respectively. Anti\SARS\CoV\2 IgG and IgM antibodies against NCP were detected in 82.0% and 19.8% of the patient samples, respectively. The specificity was Meticrane 100% by IIFT, Anti\SARS\CoV\2 ELISA (IgG, IgA), and Anti\SARS\CoV\2 NCP ELISA (IgM), while the four remaining assays reached specificities between 92.9% and 97.6%. Cross\reactivities were not observed. Table 2 Diagnostic overall performance of the assays Positive825945666660654 Borderline\\\451063 Negative023371211121175Sensitivity100%72%54.9%84.6%85.7%83.3%85.5%5%CI (%)(95.6, 100)(60.9, 81.3)(43.5, 65.9)(74.7, 91.8)(75.9, 92.7)(72.7, 91.1)(75.6, 92.6)(1.4, 12.5)B Positive4035402830343521 Borderline\\\10210 Negative71271817111126Sensitivity85.1%74.5%85.11%60.9%63.8%75.6%76.1%44.7%CI (%)(71.7, 93.8)(59.7, 86.1)(71.7, 93.8)(45.3, 74.9)(48.5, 77.3)(60.5, 87.1)(61.2, 87.4)(30.2, 59.9)A?+?B Positive122948594969410025 Borderline\\\551273 Negative7354430282322101Sensitivity94.6%72.9%65.9%75.8%77.4.%80.34%82.0%19.8%CI (%)(89.1, 97.8)(64.3, 80.3)(57.0, 74.0)(67.3, 83.0)(69.0, 8.4)(72.0, 87.1)(74.0, 88.3)(13.3, 27.9)C Positive00001010 Borderline\\\10110 Unfavorable4242424141414042Specificity100%100%100%100%97.6%100%97.6%100%CI (%)(91.6, 100)(91.6, 100)(91.6, 100)(91.4, 100)(87.4, 99.9)(91.4, 100)(87.4, 99.9)(91.6, 100)D Positive00000000 Borderline\\\00000 Negative1212121212121212Cross\reactivityNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone Open in a separate windows Sensitivities were determined based on Panel A (samples?=?82), Panel B (samples?=?47) and Panels A?+?B (samples?=?129). Specificities were determined based on Panel C (n samples?=?42). Cross\reactivities were decided based on panel D (samples?=?12). CI: 95% confidence interval. Borderline ELISA results were excluded for calculation of the sensitivity and specificity. Abbreviations: ELISA, enzyme\linked immunosorbent assay; IgA, immunoglobulin A; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M; IIFT, indirect immunofluorescence screening; NCP, nucleocapsid protein; SARS\CoV\2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Qualitative results (positive/borderline/unfavorable) for individual serum samples have been visualized in Physique?1. The sensitivities of IgA and IgM assays were the highest in the early phase of contamination, while positive results for IgG antibodies occurred most often Meticrane in the intermediate phase (Table?3). Open in a separate window Physique 1 Longitudinal detection of SARS\CoV\2\specific antibody responses in serum samples from panel A (25 patients, 82 samples) and B (17 patients, 47 samples, results of six samples with unknown dpso are not displayed) with respect to the phase of contamination using different serological methods (IIFT and ELISA). Dpso: days after onset of symptoms. SARS\CoV\2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Table 3 Quantity of positive results and sensitivity (%) per contamination phase based on 109 serum samples from panels A?+?B taken later than ten days after onset of symptoms (dpso) samples For the ELISAs, the number of borderline.
Categories