Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Evaluation of spike protein antigens for SARS-CoV-2 serology

Suraj Jagtap, K Ratnasri, Priyanka Valloly, Rakhi Sharma, Satyaghosh Maurya, Anushree Gaigore, Chitra Ardhya, Dayananda S. Biligi, Bapu Koundinya Desiraju, Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu, Deepak Kumar Saini, Rahul Roy
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250382
Suraj Jagtap
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K Ratnasri
bCentre for BioSystems Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Priyanka Valloly
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rakhi Sharma
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Satyaghosh Maurya
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anushree Gaigore
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chitra Ardhya
cDepartment of Pathology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore, 560002 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dayananda S. Biligi
cDepartment of Pathology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore, 560002 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bapu Koundinya Desiraju
dTranslational Health Science and Technology Institute, NCR Biotech Science Cluster, Faridabad, 121001 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu
eDivision of Infectious Diseases, St. John’s Research Institute, Bangalore, 560034 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deepak Kumar Saini
bCentre for BioSystems Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
fDepartment of Molecular Reproduction, Development and Genetics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rahul Roy
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
bCentre for BioSystems Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012 India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rahulroy{at}iisc.ac.in
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Spike protein domains are being used in various serology-based assays to detect prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, there has been limited comparison of human antibody titers against various spike protein antigens among COVID-19 infected patients.

Methods We compared four spike proteins (RBD, S1, S2 and a stabilized spike trimer (ST)) representing commonly used antigens for their reactivity to human IgG antibodies using indirect ELISA in serum from COVID-19 patients and pre-2020 samples. ST ELISA was also compared against the EUROIMMUN IgG ELISA test. Further, we estimated time appropriate IgG and IgA seropositivity rates in COVID-19 patients using a panel of sera samples collected longitudinally from the day ofonset of symptoms (DOS).

Results Among the four spike antigens tested, the ST demonstrated the highest sensitivity (86.2%; 95% CI: 77.8-91.7%), while all four antigens showed high specificity to COVID-19 sera (94.7-96.8%). 13.8% (13/94) of the samples did not show seroconversion in any of the four antigen-based assays. In a double-blinded head-to-head comparison, ST based IgG ELISA displayed a better sensitivity (87.5%, 95%CI: 76.4-93.8%) than the EUROIMMUN IgG ELISA (67.9%, 95% CI: 54.8-78.6%). Further, in ST-based assays, we found 48% and 50% seroconversion in the first six days (from DOS) for IgG and IgA antibodies, respectively, which increased to 84% (IgG) and 85% (IgA) for samples collected ≥22 days DOS.

Conclusions Comparison of spike antigens demonstrates that spike trimer protein is a superior option as an ELISA antigen for COVID-19 serology.

Highlights

  • Spike trimer displays the highest antibody titer in SARS-CoV-2 infections among spike protein antigens.

  • Spike trimer IgG ELISA displays a sensitivity of 50% within six days and 86.2% after 14 days from onset of symptoms.

  • IgA and IgG responses to spike trimer antigen were comparable and concomitant in time after infection.

  • 16% (IgG) and 15% (IgA) of COVID-19 RT-PCR positive patients did not seroconvert even after 21 days from onset of symptoms.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Indian Institute of Science and Corporate Social Responsibility funding by Capgemini India. Funding agencies had no role in the design, execution, interpretation and publication decision of the study.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institute Human Ethics Committee at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (1-12062020E/10-14032018) and Ethics Committee of Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore (BMCRI/PS/02/2020-21) and Institutional Ethics Committee at Translational Health Science and Technology Institute, Faridabad (THS 1.8.1/(91) 13.1.2020).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials. Additional raw and derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [RR] on request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 29, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluation of spike protein antigens for SARS-CoV-2 serology
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Evaluation of spike protein antigens for SARS-CoV-2 serology
Suraj Jagtap, K Ratnasri, Priyanka Valloly, Rakhi Sharma, Satyaghosh Maurya, Anushree Gaigore, Chitra Ardhya, Dayananda S. Biligi, Bapu Koundinya Desiraju, Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu, Deepak Kumar Saini, Rahul Roy
medRxiv 2021.01.27.21250382; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250382
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Evaluation of spike protein antigens for SARS-CoV-2 serology
Suraj Jagtap, K Ratnasri, Priyanka Valloly, Rakhi Sharma, Satyaghosh Maurya, Anushree Gaigore, Chitra Ardhya, Dayananda S. Biligi, Bapu Koundinya Desiraju, Uma Chandra Mouli Natchu, Deepak Kumar Saini, Rahul Roy
medRxiv 2021.01.27.21250382; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250382

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)