血清学检测在Covid-19诊断中的敏感性:抗原重要吗?

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
C Sitzia, L Pistelli, R Cardani, L V Renna, M Ranucci, M Carrara, S Borlini, P Clerici, B Rampoldi, M Cornetta, M Corsi-Romanelli
{"title":"血清学检测在Covid-19诊断中的敏感性:抗原重要吗?","authors":"C Sitzia,&nbsp;L Pistelli,&nbsp;R Cardani,&nbsp;L V Renna,&nbsp;M Ranucci,&nbsp;M Carrara,&nbsp;S Borlini,&nbsp;P Clerici,&nbsp;B Rampoldi,&nbsp;M Cornetta,&nbsp;M Corsi-Romanelli","doi":"10.23812/21-163-A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the spreading of Sar-CoV-2 in March 2020, many serologic tests have been developed to identify antibody responses. Indeed, different commercial kits are directed against different antigens and could utilise different methods thereby triggering confusion and criticism. Here, we compared two Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved automatized assays that detect IgG responses against spike or nucleocapsid protein of Sars-Cov-2 virus in 127 subjects among healthcare workers of IRCCS Policlinico San Donato (MI), Italy. We observed different kinetics of IgG responses, demonstrating the importance of timing of sampling to correctly interpret the results both for infection diagnosis and for epidemiologic studies. We observed that Anti-N response starts earlier than Anti-S1/S2 response but also decreases earlier, affecting the sensitivity of the tests at different time points. Combining two different assays, designed against different antigens, could reduce false negative results. Finally, we observed a patient who produced anti-nucleocapsid IgG, but not anti-spike IgG. In conclusion, we investigated antibody responses in Covid-19 disease, aiming to direct clinicians and laboratory scientists to correctly interpret serologic results by always paying attention to clinical history correlation, timing of sampling, methods and antigens used, to avoid false negative results and obtain relevant epidemiologic data.</p>","PeriodicalId":15084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents","volume":"35 3","pages":"881-887"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity of serology assay in Covid-19 diagnosis: does the antigen matter?\",\"authors\":\"C Sitzia,&nbsp;L Pistelli,&nbsp;R Cardani,&nbsp;L V Renna,&nbsp;M Ranucci,&nbsp;M Carrara,&nbsp;S Borlini,&nbsp;P Clerici,&nbsp;B Rampoldi,&nbsp;M Cornetta,&nbsp;M Corsi-Romanelli\",\"doi\":\"10.23812/21-163-A\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Since the spreading of Sar-CoV-2 in March 2020, many serologic tests have been developed to identify antibody responses. Indeed, different commercial kits are directed against different antigens and could utilise different methods thereby triggering confusion and criticism. Here, we compared two Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved automatized assays that detect IgG responses against spike or nucleocapsid protein of Sars-Cov-2 virus in 127 subjects among healthcare workers of IRCCS Policlinico San Donato (MI), Italy. We observed different kinetics of IgG responses, demonstrating the importance of timing of sampling to correctly interpret the results both for infection diagnosis and for epidemiologic studies. We observed that Anti-N response starts earlier than Anti-S1/S2 response but also decreases earlier, affecting the sensitivity of the tests at different time points. Combining two different assays, designed against different antigens, could reduce false negative results. Finally, we observed a patient who produced anti-nucleocapsid IgG, but not anti-spike IgG. In conclusion, we investigated antibody responses in Covid-19 disease, aiming to direct clinicians and laboratory scientists to correctly interpret serologic results by always paying attention to clinical history correlation, timing of sampling, methods and antigens used, to avoid false negative results and obtain relevant epidemiologic data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"881-887\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23812/21-163-A\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23812/21-163-A","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2020年3月新冠病毒传播以来,已经开发了许多血清学检测来确定抗体反应。事实上,不同的商业试剂盒针对不同的抗原,可能使用不同的方法,从而引发混乱和批评。在这里,我们比较了两种美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的检测Sars-Cov-2病毒刺突或核衣壳蛋白IgG反应的自动化检测方法,检测对象为意大利圣多纳托icccs Policlinico (MI)的127名医护人员。我们观察到IgG反应的不同动力学,证明了采样时间对正确解释感染诊断和流行病学研究结果的重要性。我们观察到Anti-N响应开始早于Anti-S1/S2响应,但也更早下降,影响了不同时间点的测试灵敏度。结合针对不同抗原设计的两种不同的检测方法,可以减少假阴性结果。最后,我们观察到一个患者产生抗核衣壳IgG,但不产生抗刺突IgG。综上所述,我们对Covid-19疾病的抗体反应进行了调查,旨在指导临床医生和实验室科学家正确解释血清学结果,注意临床病史相关性、采样时间、方法和所用抗原,避免假阴性结果,获得相关的流行病学数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity of serology assay in Covid-19 diagnosis: does the antigen matter?

Since the spreading of Sar-CoV-2 in March 2020, many serologic tests have been developed to identify antibody responses. Indeed, different commercial kits are directed against different antigens and could utilise different methods thereby triggering confusion and criticism. Here, we compared two Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved automatized assays that detect IgG responses against spike or nucleocapsid protein of Sars-Cov-2 virus in 127 subjects among healthcare workers of IRCCS Policlinico San Donato (MI), Italy. We observed different kinetics of IgG responses, demonstrating the importance of timing of sampling to correctly interpret the results both for infection diagnosis and for epidemiologic studies. We observed that Anti-N response starts earlier than Anti-S1/S2 response but also decreases earlier, affecting the sensitivity of the tests at different time points. Combining two different assays, designed against different antigens, could reduce false negative results. Finally, we observed a patient who produced anti-nucleocapsid IgG, but not anti-spike IgG. In conclusion, we investigated antibody responses in Covid-19 disease, aiming to direct clinicians and laboratory scientists to correctly interpret serologic results by always paying attention to clinical history correlation, timing of sampling, methods and antigens used, to avoid false negative results and obtain relevant epidemiologic data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.60%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents (IF 1.397) is a peer-reviewed journal published every 2 months. The journal publishes original papers describing research in the fields of experimental and clinical medicine, molecular biology, biochemistry, regulatory molecules, cellular immunology and pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信