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
. 2025 Feb 28;13(3):259.
doi: 10.3390/vaccines13030259.

Discrepancy in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Status Among PCR, Serological, and Cellular Immunity Assays of Nucleocapsids: A Historical Cohort Study

Affiliations

Discrepancy in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Status Among PCR, Serological, and Cellular Immunity Assays of Nucleocapsids: A Historical Cohort Study

Taiga Uchiyama et al. Vaccines (Basel). .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Limited research has compared tests assessing humoral and cellular immunity related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study evaluated immunoglobulin G for nucleocapsid (IgG(N)) and T-spot for nucleocapsid (T-spot(N)) assays against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results for identifying infected individuals. Methods: This study included participants who had completed five blood samplings since their second COVID-19 vaccination between 9 September 2021 and 6 November 2022. Chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) tests measured the humoral immune response, IgG(S) and neutralizing activity tests the immune status, and IgG(N) tests the infection history. For cellar immunity, T-spot(S) indicated immune status, and T-spot(N) indicated infection history. Results: The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who tested positive for PCR and the proportion who tested positive for IgG(N) and T-spot(N). Overall, this study included 2104 participants. In the PCR-negative group, 1838 individuals tested negative for IgG(N), whereas 64 tested positive at least once. The geometric mean of IgG(S) at T5 was 1541.7 AU/mL in the IgG(N)-negative group and 3965.8 AU/mL in the IgG(N)-positive group, which was 2.6 times higher. In the PCR-positive group, 25 individuals tested negative for IgG(N), while 177 tested positive at least once. The geometric mean of IgG(S) at T5 was 2700.6 AU/mL in the IgG(N)-negative group and 5400.8 AU/mL in the IgG(N)-positive group, showing higher values in the IgG(N)-positive group. Conclusions: A discrepancy was noted between PCR test results and the IgG(N) and T-spot(N) determinations. Combining multiple assays is required to accurately identify the past-infected population.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; cellular immunity; humoral immunity; nucleocapsid.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Kaneko is employed by Medical and Biological Laboratories, Co. (MBL, Tokyo, Japan). MBL imported the testing materials used in this study. Kaneko participated in the testing process; however, he was not involved in the research design and analysis. Kobashi and Tsubokura received a research grant from the Pfizer Health Research Foundation for research that is not associated with this study (from 1 December 2020 to 30 November 2022). All authors declare no other competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The timeline for the five blood samplings.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Relationships between different assays. (A) IgG(N)-positive times by the results of PCR. (B) T-spot (N)-positive times by the results of PCR. (C) IgG(S) titer at T5 by the group of IgG(N) results and negative PCR. (D) T-spot(S) at T5 by the group of IgG(N) results and negative PCR. (E) IgG(S) titer at T5 by the group of IgG(N) results and positive PCR. (F) T-spot(S) at T5 by the group of IgG(N) results and positive PCR. (G) IgG(S) titer at T5 by the group of T-spot (N) results and negative PCR. (H) T-spot(S) at T5 by the group of T-spot (N) results and negative PCR. (I) IgG(S) titer at T5 by the group of T-spot (N) results and positive PCR. (J) T-spot(S) at T5 by the group of T-spot (N) results and positive PCR. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 with Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Similar articles

References

    1. Zhou L., Ayeh S.K., Chidambaram V., Karakousis P.C. Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and evidence for preventive behavioral interventions. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021;21:496. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06222-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhan Z., Li J., Cheng Z.J. Rapid antigen test combine with nucleic acid detection: A better strategy for COVID-19 screening at points of entry. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health. 2022;12:13–15. doi: 10.1007/s44197-021-00030-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee J., Song J.U., Shim S.R. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests to real time polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Virol. 2021;144:104985. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104985. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yüce M., Filiztekin E., Özkaya K.G. COVID-19 diagnosis—A review of current methods. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021;172:112752. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112752. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oran D.P., Topol E.J. Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020;173:362–367. doi: 10.7326/M20-3012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources