Evaluations of serological test in the diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infections during the COVID-19 outbreak
Posted 30 Mar 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.27.20045153
Posted 30 Mar 2020
The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has killed over twenty-one thousand and sickened over four hundred thousand people worldwide, posing a great challenge to global public health. A sensitive and accurate diagnosis method will substantially help to control disease expansion. Here, we developed a chemiluminescence-immunoassay method based on the recombinant nucleocapsid antigen and the magnetic beads for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections and surveillance of antibody changing pattern. Serums from 29 healthy individuals, 51 tuberculosis patients, and 79 SARS-CoV-2 confirmed patients were employed to evaluate the performance of this approach. Compared to the IgM testing, the IgG testing was more reliable in which it identified 65 SARS-CoV-2 infections from the 79 confirmed patients and only two false-positive cases from the 80 control group with a sensitivity and specificity reaching 82.28% and 97.5%, respectively. However, only a slight difference (not statistically significant) in the detected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections was observed between the IgM and IgG testing manner in patients at a different time of onset of disease. A performance comparison between an ELISA kit using the same nucleocapsid antigen and our chemiluminescence method was undertaken. The same false-positive cases were seen in both methods from the paired control group, while ELISA kit can only detect half of the SARS-CoV-2 infections from paired SARS-CoV-2 confirmed patients group than that of the chemiluminescence method, indicating a higher performance for the chemiluminescence-immunoassay approach. Together, our studies provide a useful and valuable serological testing tool for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the community.
- Downloaded 4,053 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 3,104
- In infectious diseases: 658
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 30,122
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 36,579
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!