Evaluation of Enzyme-Linked Immunoassay and Colloidal Gold-Immunochromatographic Assay Kit for Detection of Novel Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) Causing an Outbreak of Pneumonia (COVID-19)

Study Design and Participants

This case series was approved by the institutional ethics board of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital. All consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Jinyintan Hospital from January 1 to January 28, 2020, were enrolled. Oral consent was obtained from patients. Jinyintan Hospital, located in Wuhan, Hubei Province, the endemic areas of COVID-19, is first designated hospital for COVID-19 patients in Wuhan. All patients with COVID-19 enrolled in this study were diagnosed according to World Health Organization interim guidance (7, 8). The remaining serum samples for clinical testing were collected from two groups of patients. One group collected 63 samples from February 2, 2020 for Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG and IgM antibodies. The other group collected 91 plasma samples from February 3-4, 2020 for colloidal gold-immunochromatographic assay (GICA), of which 81 cases took throat swab sample for nucleic acids (Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay, qRT-PCR) detection. 35 healthy individuals served as controls in both groups.

ELISA

The novel coronavirus IgG/IgM antibody ELISA kits (lot number 2020010108) were manufactured by Zhu Hai Liv Zon Diagnostics Inc. The 98 serum samples were tested according to the manufacturer’s instructions. IgM capture ELISA: Firstly, 5 μL serum samples were diluted in 500 μL sample diluent. Then added 100 μL diluted samples to duplicate wells of microplates which were coated with mouse anti-human IgM monoclonal antibody (μchain), and incubated for 60 min at 37□±1□. Plates were washed five times and reacted with 100 μL enzyme marker (enzyme-labeled antibody-linked antigen) for 30 min at 37□±1°C for the purpose of detecting IgM against new coronavirus in serum samples. IgG indirect ELISA:5 μL serum samples diluted in 100 μL sample diluent were added to duplicate wells of microplates which were coated with recombinant antigen of new coronavirus, and incubated for 60 min at 37□±1□. Plates were washed five times and reacted with 100 μL enzyme marker (HRP-conjugated monoclonal mouse anti-human IgG) for 30 min at 37□±1 °C for the purpose of detecting IgG against new coronavirus in serum samples. Plates were then washed five times, and 50 μL substrate buffer and 50 μL tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate solution were added to each well for a chromogenic reaction for 15 min at 37□±1 °C. The color reaction was stopped by the addition 50 μL of 2 M H2SO4 to each well. Finally, the OD450 was measured and recorded immediately using an Infinite 200 PRO microplatereader.

GICA

The novel coronavirus IgG/IgM antibody GICA kits (lot number 2001010220) were manufactured by Zhu Hai Liv Zon Diagnostics Inc, China. The 126 serum samples were tested according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For each test, 10μL of serum sample and 100μL of sample diluent were added vertically onto the sample pad of the test strip. The strip was then placed flat to allow the solution to migrate up the membrane, through gold-labeled pad, the testing area, quality control area and finally to adsorption zone.

After 10 min, the result was judged by the color of the test and control lines. If both the detection band and the control band turned red, the sample was recorded as positive. If the control band turned red but the detection band was not colored, it was recorded as negative. If neither band was colored, the test reagents were assumed to be not working.

qRT-PCR Assay for SARS-CoV-2

Throat swab samples, sputum samples and alveolar lavage fluid samples were collected for extracting 2019-nCoV RNA from patients suspected of having 2019-nCoV infection. After collection, the throat swabs were placed into a sterile test tube with 1 ml sterile saline, the sputum samples were added equal volume of acetylcysteine (10g/L) and shaken at room temperature for 30 min to be fully liquefied, and total RNA was extracted using the nucleic acid extraction kit (QIAamp viral RNA mini kit). In brief, 40μL of cell lysates were transferred into a collection tube followed by vortex for 10 seconds. After standing at room temperature for 10 minutes, the collection tube was centrifugated at 1000 rpm/min for 5 minutes. The suspension was used for qRT-PCR assay of 2019-nCoV RNA. Then, n*19 μL mixed reagent of fluorescence PCR detection for 2019-nCoV nucleic acid and n* 1 μL RT-PCR enzyme (n was the number of reaction tubes) were mixed and vortexed for a few seconds. The above mixture of 20 μL was put into the PCR reaction tube respectively, after that the extracted sample by 5 μL was added. qRT-PCR analysis was conducted using the ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System. The PCR parameters were 45 °C for 10 min, 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s, and a single fluorescence detection point at 58°C. Two target genes, including open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) and nucleocapsid protein (N), were simultaneously amplified and tested during the qRT-PCR assay. The qRT-PCR assay was performed using a 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Shanghai ZJ Bio-Tech Co Ltd). A cycle threshold value (Ct-value) less than 37 was defined as a positive test result, and a Ct-value of 40 or more was defined as a negative test. These diagnostic criteria were based on the recommendation by the National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention (China) (http://ivdc.chinacdc.cn/kyjz/202001/t20200121_211337.html). A medium load, defined as a Ct-value of 37 to less than 40, required confirmation by retesting.

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies (percentages), and performed using the chi-square test with Yates’s correction or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. For multiple statistical comparisons, chi-square test was corrected by Bonferroni’s correction (0.05/test numbers).

ELISA results

ELISA test of 63 samples of known COVID-19 patients, the results showed that 28 IgM antibodies were positive, the sensitivity was 44.4% (28/63), the specificity was 100% (35/35), the accuracy was 63/98 (64.3). 52 IgG antibodies were positive, with an accuracy of 82.54% (52/63), specificity of 100% (35/35), and accuracy of 87/98 (88.8). The sensitivity of the combined IgM and IgG detection was 55/63 (87.3%) (Table 1). (Supplementary Table 1 and Table 2)

GICA results

GICA test of 91 samples of known COVID-19 patients, the results showed that 52 IgM antibodies were positive, the sensitivity was 57.1% (52/91), the specificity was 100% (35/35), the accuracy was 69.0% (87/126). 74 IgG antibodies were positive, with an accuracy of 81.3% (74/91), specificity of 100% (35/35), and accuracy of 109/126 (86.5). The sensitivity of the combined IgM and IgG detection was 75/91 (82.4%) (Table 2). (Supplementary Table 3 and Table 4)

qRT-PCR results

qRT-PCR test of 81 samples of known COVID-19 patients, the results showed that 42 cases were positive, the sensitivity was 51.9% (42/81).

Compare the sensitivity of the three methods (ELISA IgM+ IgG, GICA IgM+IgG, qRT-PCR)

Overall, there are significant differences in the three detection methods (P<0.001). There is no significant difference between the sensitivity of between ELISA (IgM+ IgG) and GICA (IgM+ IgG), P=0.411. (Table 3)