Abstract
Background Detecting antibody responses during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential in determining the seroepidemiology of the virus and the potential role of antibody in disease. Scalable, sensitive and specific serological assays are essential to this process. The detection of antibody in hospitalized patients with severe disease has proven straightforward; detecting responses in subjects with mild disease and asymptomatic infections has proven less reliable. We hypothesized that the suboptimal sensitivity of antibody assays and the compartmentalization of the antibody response may contribute to this effect.
Methods We systemically developed an ELISA assay, optimising different antigens and amplification steps, in serum and saliva from symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects.
Results Using trimeric spike glycoprotein, rather than nucleocapsid enabled detection of responses in individuals with low antibody responses. IgG1 and IgG3 predominate to both antigens, but more anti-spike IgG1 than IgG3 was detectable. All antigens were effective for detecting responses in hospitalized patients. Anti-spike, but not nucleocapsid, IgG, IgA and IgM antibody responses were readily detectable in saliva from non-hospitalized symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Antibody responses in saliva and serum were largely independent of each other and symptom reporting.
Conclusions Detecting antibody responses in both saliva and serum is optimal for determining virus exposure and understanding immune responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Funding This work was funded by the University of Birmingham, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the University of Southampton.
Competing Interest Statement
AC and SH are employed by the Binding Site Group Ltd. AH has a commercial relationship with Binding Site Group Ltd. MTD and MG have a commercial relationship with Abingdon Health. The rest of the authors declared no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
AFC is grateful for funding from The Medical Research Council, The Institute for Global Innovation and The University of Birmingham for funding. This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research, Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres Funding scheme. The work in Prof. Max Crispin's laboratory was funded by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery (OPP1196345/INV-008813, OPP1084519 and OPP1115782), the Scripps Consortium for HIV Vaccine Development (CHAVD) (NIH: National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases AI144462), and the University of Southampton Coronavirus Response Fund. The CoCo study was funded internally by the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and carried out at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)/Wellcome Trust Birmingham Clinical Research Facility.
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:
The study was approved by the London - Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/HRA/1817), and the University of Birmingham (reference ERN_16-178).
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
Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
