The Roche, Snibe Diagnostic, and Immunodiagnostics platforms showed better overall true-positive values, but also had high levels of false negatives

The Roche, Snibe Diagnostic, and Immunodiagnostics platforms showed better overall true-positive values, but also had high levels of false negatives. immunoassays, the positive percent agreement of the results was 95% in sera AS-1517499 exhibiting PRNT levels of 1:80 and higher. The assays tested have shown variable correlation to PRNT. Those possessing high positive predictive values serve well as qualitative assessments, while others can be utilised as quantitative assessments highly predictive of neutralization antibody levels. Subject terms:Clinical microbiology, Infectious-disease diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 == Introduction == Coronaviruses are known human respiratory pathogens. Several human coronaviruses are causative brokers of seasonal moderate influenza-like infections, e.g. alphacoronaviruses HCoV-229E or HCoV-NL63 and betacoronaviruses HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1. Few other beta-coronaviruses were shown previously to cause severe respiratory infectionsSARS-CoV or MERS-CoV. In 2019, a new human coronavirus emerged and caused a global pandemic. This new coronavirus has been named SARS-CoV-2 due to its genetical and symptomatical similarity to SARS-CoV-1. The new SARS-CoV-2 causes Coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19), which is characterized by a varying severity of disease, ranging from moderate respiratory infections to the severe respiratory distress syndrome and respiratory failure. The main diagnostic tools used for the diagnosis of COVID-19 have been PCR assays and SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen detection assessments. Serological assays (the detection of computer virus specific antibodies) have been mostly used as auxiliary methods, in the Czech Republic often only for screening of convalescent plasma donors or as an effective epidemiological tool for identifying past infections, but rarely for COVID-19 diagnostic purposes. A broad spectrum of serologic methods for establishing specific SARS CoV-2 antibodies have been used, ranging from quick “first-line” diagnosis by immunochromatographic assays to the most accurate computer virus neutralization assay. The quick assessments showed relatively lower sensitivity in a comprehensive metadata analysis by the Cochrane Institute1, but have been widely used as the first-line tool due to its cost and simple manipulation. The EIA/CMIA/CLIA assessments are used in clinical laboratories and, currently, wide Rabbit Polyclonal to BRI3B variety of commercial assessments characterised by varying efficacies are available. Several studies have compared these assessments with each other and with computer virus neutralization assessments and showed, that this sensitivities and degrees of correlation to the computer virus neutralization test results are relatively variable27. One potential reason for these discrepancies could be the variability of targets utilised in the individual assessments, with the most used ones being the nucleocapsid antigen, the S1 antigen, or the RBD domain AS-1517499 name of the S1 antigen. During the immune response in COVID-19, the development of antibodies against these individual targets shows different dynamics3,8,9. The level of neutralizing antibodies appears to be a reliable marker for predicting immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 contamination, and therefore knowledge of their level could lead to better implementation of the serological method in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics10. Thus, the purpose of this study was to test the most used commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays on a large cohort of patient sera AS-1517499 and evaluate their predictive values for the computer virus neutralization potential of the detected antibodies. == Materials and methods == == Sample collection == Patient sera or plasma were collected from three large hospitals in the Czech Republic during the period of April 2020January 2021. A total of 3,699 samples obtained from patients at various time periods after SARS-CoV-2 contamination (from acute samples to convalescent samples at 12 months post-acute contamination) were included in the study. Positivity was confirmed in all patients by the PCR test from respiratory samples..