Evaluation of a commercial culture-free neutralization antibody detection kit for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 and comparison with an antireceptor-binding domain enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Thumbnail image

Download files

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab220

Language of the publication
English
Date
2021-04-30
Type
Article
Author(s)
  • Papenburg, Jesse
  • Cheng, Matthew P.
  • Corsini, Rachel
  • Caya, Chelsea
  • Mendoza, Emelissa
  • Manguiat, Kathy
  • Lindsay, L. Robbin
  • Wood, Heidi
  • Drebot, Michael A.
  • Dibernardo, Antonia
  • Zaharatos, Gerasimos
  • Bazin, Reneé
  • Gasser, Romain
  • Benlarbi, Mehdi
  • Gendron-Lepage, Gabrielle
  • Beaudoin-Bussières, Guillaume
  • Prévost, Jérémie
  • Finzi, Andrés
  • Ndao, Momar
  • Yansouni, Cedric P.
Publisher
Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America

Abstract

Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surrogate neutralization assays that obviate the need for viral culture offer substantial advantages regarding throughput and cost. The cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript) is the first such commercially available assay that detects antibodies that block receptor-binding domain (RBD)/angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-2 interaction. We aimed to evaluate cPass to inform its use and assess its added value compared with anti-RBD enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs).

Methods
Serum reference panels comprising 205 specimens were used to compare cPass to plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and a pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization (PLV) assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies. We assessed the correlation of cPass with an ELISA detecting anti-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM, and IgA antibodies at a single timepoint and across intervals from onset of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results
Compared with PRNT-50, cPass sensitivity ranged from 77% to 100% and specificity was 95% to 100%. Sensitivity was also high compared with the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85–97), but specificity was lower (58%; 95% CI, 48–67). Highest agreement between cPass and ELISA was for anti-RBD IgG (r = 0.823). Against the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay, anti-RBD IgG sensitivity (99%; 95% CI, 94–100) was very similar to that of cPass, but overall specificity was lower (37%; 95% CI, 28–47). Against PRNT-50, results of cPass and anti-RBD IgG were nearly identical.

Conclusions
The added value of cPass compared with an IgG anti-RBD ELISA was modest.

Subject

  • Health,
  • Coronavirus diseases

Rights

Pagination

1-10

Peer review

Yes

Identifiers

PubMed ID
34136587
ISSN
2328-8957

Article

Journal title
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Journal volume
8
Journal issue
6

Sponsors

C. P. Y. and J. Pa. hold a “Chercheur-boursier clinicien” career award from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Santé. This work was partially funded by le Ministère de l’Économie et de l’Innovation du Québec (Program de soutien aux organismes de recherche et d’innovation), the Fondation du CHUM, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (via the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force) (to A. F.). A. F. is the recipient of a Canada Research Chair on Retroviral Entry (RCHS0235 950-232424). G. B.-B., and J. Pr. are supported by CIHR fellowships. R. G. is supported by a MITACS Accélération postdoctoral fellowship. cPass kits were provided in kind by GenScript.

Download(s)

URI

Collection(s)

Communicable diseases

Full item page

Full item page

Page details

Date modified: