Serological signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Implications for antibody-based diagnostics

Background The antibody response generated following infection with SARS-CoV-2 is expected to decline over time. This may cause individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to test negative according to serological diagnostic tests in the months and years following symptom onset. Methods A multiplex serological assay was developed to measure IgG and IgM antibody responses to four SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigens: spike trimeric ectodomain (Stri), its receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike subunit 1 (S1), and spike subunit 2 (S2). Antibody responses were measured in serum samples from patients in French hospitals with RT-qPCR confirmed infection (n = 259), and negative control serum samples collected before the start of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in 2019 (n = 335). The multiplex antibody data was used to train a random forests algorithm for classifying individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. A mathematical model of antibody kinetics informed by prior information from other coronaviruses was used to estimate time-varying antibody responses and assess the potential sensitivity and classification performance of serological diagnostics during the first year following symptom onset. Results IgG antibody responses to one S antigen identified individuals with previous RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with 90.3% sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI); 86.1%, 93.4%) and 99.1% specificity (95% CI; 97.4%, 99.7%). Using a serological signature of IgG to four antigens, it was possible to identify infected individuals with 96.1% sensitivity (95% CI; 93.0%, 97.9%) and 99.1% specificity (95% CI; 97.4%, 99.7%). Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 increase rapidly 1-2 weeks after symptom onset, with antibody responses predicted to peak within 2-4 weeks. Informed by prior data from other coronaviruses, one year following symptom onset antibody responses are predicted to decay by approximately 60% from the peak response. Depending on the selection of sero-positivity cutoff, we estimate that the sensitivity of serological diagnostics may reduce to 56%-97% after six months, and to 49%-93% after one year. Conclusion Serological signatures based on antibody responses to multiple antigens can provide more accurate and robust serological classification of individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Changes in antibody levels over time may cause reductions in the sensitivity of serological diagnostics leading to an underestimation of sero-prevalence. It is essential that data continue to be collected to evaluate this potential risk.

[1]  M. Harbers,et al.  IgG Antibody Responses Are Preferential Compared With IgM for Use as Serological Markers for Detecting Recent Exposure to Plasmodium vivax Infection , 2020, medRxiv.

[2]  Nicolas Carlier,et al.  Impaired type I interferon activity and inflammatory responses in severe COVID-19 patients , 2020, Science.

[3]  X. Tang,et al.  Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[4]  B. Greenhouse,et al.  Are SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates biased? , 2020, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[5]  A. Gelman,et al.  Bayesian Analysis of Tests with Unknown Specificity and Sensitivity , 2020, medRxiv.

[6]  A. Fontanet,et al.  Serologic responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital staff with mild disease in eastern France , 2020, EBioMedicine.

[7]  A. Azman,et al.  Serology for SARS-CoV-2: Apprehensions, opportunities, and the path forward , 2020, Science Immunology.

[8]  C. Cunningham-Rundles,et al.  A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[9]  O. Tsang,et al.  Beyond the Spike: identification of viral targets of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients , 2020, medRxiv.

[10]  M. Harbers,et al.  Development and validation of serological markers for detecting recent Plasmodium vivax infection , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[11]  Y. Yazdanpanah,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 serological analysis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients, pauci-symptomatic individuals and blood donors. , 2020, medRxiv.

[12]  F. Rieux-Laucat,et al.  Impaired type I interferon activity and exacerbated inflammatory responses in severe Covid-19 patients , 2020, medRxiv.

[13]  N. Watkins,et al.  Evaluation of antibody testing for SARS-Cov-2 using ELISA and lateral flow immunoassays , 2020, medRxiv.

[14]  D. Larremore,et al.  Estimating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and epidemiological parameters with uncertainty from serological surveys , 2020, medRxiv.

[15]  D. Cummings,et al.  A systematic review of antibody mediated immunity to coronaviruses: antibody kinetics, correlates of protection, and association of antibody responses with severity of disease , 2020, medRxiv.

[16]  Juan A. Siordia,et al.  Epidemiology and clinical features of COVID-19: A review of current literature , 2020, Journal of Clinical Virology.

[17]  K. Krogfelt,et al.  Evaluation of nine commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays , 2020, medRxiv.

[18]  P. Vollmar,et al.  Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019 , 2020, Nature.

[19]  Xavier Duval,et al.  Clinical and virological data of the first cases of COVID-19 in Europe: a case series , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[20]  O. Tsang,et al.  Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[21]  Qi Jin,et al.  Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) , 2020, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[22]  Y. Yazdanpanah,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients , 2020, medRxiv.

[23]  Pu Liao,et al.  Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients: the perspective application of serological tests in clinical practice , 2020, medRxiv.

[24]  A. Diallo,et al.  Antibody kinetics following vaccination with MenAfriVac: an analysis of serological data from randomised trials. , 2019, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[25]  J. Lessler,et al.  Estimating cholera incidence with cross-sectional serology , 2019, Science Translational Medicine.

[26]  C. Sundling,et al.  Antibody responses to merozoite antigens after natural Plasmodium falciparum infection: kinetics and longevity in absence of re-exposure , 2019, BMC Medicine.

[27]  Barney S. Graham,et al.  Publisher Correction: Stabilized coronavirus spikes are resistant to conformational changes induced by receptor recognition or proteolysis , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[28]  M. Harbers,et al.  Development and validation of serological markers for detecting recent exposure to Plasmodium vivax infection , 2018, bioRxiv.

[29]  Daniel Wrapp,et al.  Stabilized coronavirus spikes are resistant to conformational changes induced by receptor recognition or proteolysis , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[30]  Kyoung-Ho Song,et al.  MERS-CoV Antibody Responses 1 Year after Symptom Onset, South Korea, 2015 , 2017, Emerging infectious diseases.

[31]  C. Sokhna,et al.  Serological signatures of declining exposure following intensification of integrated malaria control in two rural Senegalese communities , 2017, PloS one.

[32]  J. Rayner,et al.  Asymptomatic Plasmodium vivax infections induce robust IgG responses to multiple blood-stage proteins in a low-transmission region of western Thailand , 2017, Malaria Journal.

[33]  D. Mabey,et al.  Defining Seropositivity Thresholds for Use in Trachoma Elimination Studies , 2017, PLoS neglected tropical diseases.

[34]  M. Kretzschmar,et al.  Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production. , 2016, Epidemics.

[35]  Kwaku Poku Asante,et al.  Immunogenicity of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine and implications for duration of vaccine efficacy: secondary analysis of data from a phase 3 randomised controlled trial , 2015 .

[36]  Peter D. Crompton,et al.  Novel serologic biomarkers provide accurate estimates of recent Plasmodium falciparum exposure for individuals and communities , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  D. Conway,et al.  Dynamics of the antibody response to Plasmodium falciparum infection in African children. , 2014, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[38]  Kwaku Poku Asante,et al.  A combined analysis of immunogenicity, antibody kinetics and vaccine efficacy from phase 2 trials of the RTS,S malaria vaccine , 2014, BMC Medicine.

[39]  Niel Hens,et al.  Living on Three Time Scales: The Dynamics of Plasma Cell and Antibody Populations Illustrated for Hepatitis A Virus , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  Peter J. Diggle,et al.  Estimating Prevalence Using an Imperfect Test , 2011 .

[41]  Peter B Gilbert,et al.  A framework for assessing immunological correlates of protection in vaccine trials. , 2007, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[42]  Lin‐Fa Wang,et al.  Duration of Antibody Responses after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , 2007, Emerging infectious diseases.

[43]  W. Cao,et al.  Disappearance of antibodies to SARS-associated coronavirus after recovery. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[44]  Wei Liu,et al.  Two-Year Prospective Study of the Humoral Immune Response of Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , 2006, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[45]  M. Chan-yeung,et al.  Longitudinal profile of antibodies against SARS‐coronavirus in SARS patients and their clinical significance , 2006, Respirology.

[46]  D. Tyrrell,et al.  The time course of the immune response to experimental coronavirus infection of man , 1990, Epidemiology and Infection.

[47]  R. Prentice Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.