Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Oct;93(10):5816-5824.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.27113. Epub 2021 Jun 11.

Longitudinal detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses with different serological methods

Petra Emmerich  1   2 , Ronald von Possel  1   2 , Christoph Josef Hemmer  2 , Carlos Fritzsche  2 , Hilte Geerdes-Fenge  2 , Babett Menge  3 , Claudia Messing  3 , Viola Borchardt-Lohölter  3 , Christina Deschermeier  4 , Katja Steinhagen  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Longitudinal detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses with different serological methods

Petra Emmerich et al. J Med Virol. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Serological testing for anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies is used to detect ongoing or past SARS-CoV-2 infections. To study the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and to assess the diagnostic performances of eight serological assays, we used 129 serum samples collected on known days post symptom onset (dpso) from 42 patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 54 serum samples from healthy blood donors, and children infected with seasonal coronaviruses. The sera were analyzed for the presence of immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin M (IgM), and immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies using indirect immunofluorescence testing (IIFT) based on SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. They were further tested for antibodies against the S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (IgG, IgA) and against the viral nucleocapsid protein (IgG, IgM) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The assay specificities were 94.4%-100%. The 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. 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.

Keywords: COVID-19; ELISA; SARS-CoV-2; antibodies; immunofluorescence; serology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Babett Menge, Claudia Messing, Viola Borchardt‐Lohölter, and Katja Steinhagen are employees of EUROIMMUN Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG, a company that commercializes serological assays and co‐owns a patent application related to immunoassays for the diagnosis of a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 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 infection using different serological methods (IIFT and ELISA). Dpso: days after onset of symptoms. SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Correlation between semiquantitative results of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA (IgG) and anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG). Detailed information on the serum panels is given in Table 1. ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; IgG, immunoglobulin G; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Okba NMA, Müller MA, Li W, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2‐specific antibody responses in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7):1478‐1488. 10.3201/eid2607.200841 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID‐2019. Nature. 2020;581(7809):465‐469. 10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS‐CoV‐2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):565‐574. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prévost J, Gasser R, Beaudoin‐Bussières G, et al. Cross‐sectional evaluation of humoral responses against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike. Cell reports Med. 2020;1(7):100126. 10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100126 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seow J, Graham C, Merrick B, et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in humans. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:1598‐1607. 10.1038/s41564-020-00813-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances