SARS Antibody Testing in Children: Development of Oral Fluid Assays for IgG Measurements

We report on the first large-scale assessment of the suitability of oral fluids for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibody obtained from healthy children attending school. The sample type (gingiva-crevicular fluid, which is a transudate of blood but is not saliva) can be self collected. ABSTRACT Seroepidemiological studies to monitor antibody kinetics are important for assessing the extent and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a population. Noninvasive sampling methods are advantageous for reducing the need for venipuncture, which may be a barrier to investigations, particularly in pediatric populations. Oral fluids are obtained by gingiva-crevicular sampling from children and adults and are very well accepted. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) based on these samples have acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional serum-based antibody EIAs and are suitable for population-based surveillance. We describe the development and evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG EIAs using SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleoprotein (NP) and spike (S) proteins in IgG isotype capture format and an indirect receptor-binding-domain (RBD) IgG EIA, intended for use in children as a primary endpoint. All three assays were assessed using a panel of 1,999 paired serum and oral fluids from children and adults participating in school SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies during and after the first and second pandemic wave in the United Kingdom. The anti-NP IgG capture assay was the best candidate, with an overall sensitivity of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71 to 79%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 78 to 99%) compared with paired serum antibodies. Sensitivity observed in children (80%, 95% CI: 71 to 88%) was higher than that in adults (67%, CI: 60% to 74%). Oral fluid assays (OF) using spike protein and RBD antigens were also 99% specific and achieved reasonable but lower sensitivity in the target population (78%, 95% CI [68% to 86%] and 53%, 95% CI [43% to 64%], respectively). IMPORTANCE We report on the first large-scale assessment of the suitability of oral fluids for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibody obtained from healthy children attending school. The sample type (gingiva-crevicular fluid, which is a transudate of blood but is not saliva) can be self collected. Although detection of antibodies in oral fluids is less sensitive than that in blood, our study suggests an optimal format for operational use. The laboratory methods we have developed can reliably measure antibodies in children, who are able to take their own samples. Our findings are of immediate practical relevance for use in large-scale seroprevalence studies designed to measure exposure to infection, as they typically require venipuncture. Overall, our data indicate that OF assays based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are a tool suitable for population-based seroepidemiology studies in children and highly acceptable in children and adults, as venipuncture is no longer necessary.

[1]  M. Koller,et al.  Immunity after COVID-19 and vaccination: follow-up study over 1 year among medical personnel , 2021, Infection.

[2]  G. Vidarsson,et al.  Saliva SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence in Children , 2021, Microbiology spectrum.

[3]  A. Brent,et al.  Antibody persistence and neutralising activity in primary school students and staff: Prospective active surveillance, June to December 2020, England , 2021, EClinicalMedicine.

[4]  H. Whitaker,et al.  Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Blood Donors and Changes after Introduction of Public Health and Social Measures, London, UK , 2021, Emerging infectious diseases.

[5]  Ross J. Harris,et al.  Serological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2: Six-month trends and antibody response in a cohort of public health workers , 2021, Journal of Infection.

[6]  V. Saliba,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in primary schools in England in June–December, 2020 (sKIDs): an active, prospective surveillance study , 2021, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

[7]  H. van Bakel,et al.  The plasmablast response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is dominated by non-neutralizing antibodies and targets both the NTD and the RBD , 2021, medRxiv.

[8]  M. Brady,et al.  Multiorgan impairment in low-risk individuals with post-COVID-19 syndrome: a prospective, community-based study , 2021, BMJ Open.

[9]  D. Rader,et al.  Seasonal human coronavirus antibodies are boosted upon SARS-CoV-2 infection but not associated with protection , 2021, Cell.

[10]  D. Rader,et al.  Seasonal human coronavirus antibodies are boosted upon SARS-CoV-2 infection but not associated with protection Anderson et al , 2021 .

[11]  Guohui Fan,et al.  RETRACTED: 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study , 2021, The Lancet.

[12]  Jinming Li,et al.  Immunologic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection from the Antigen Perspective , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[13]  V. Saliba,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings: a prospective, cross-sectional analysis of infection clusters and outbreaks in England , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[14]  V. Slepnev,et al.  Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Oral Fluid Obtained Using a Rapid Collection Device , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[15]  A. Aguzzi,et al.  Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19 , 2020, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

[16]  A. Gingras,et al.  Persistence of serum and saliva antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens in COVID-19 patients , 2020, Science Immunology.

[17]  A. Borczuk,et al.  COVID-19 pulmonary pathology: a multi-institutional autopsy cohort from Italy and New York City , 2020, Modern Pathology.

[18]  M. Popovic,et al.  Thermodynamic insight into viral infections 2: empirical formulas, molecular compositions and thermodynamic properties of SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) viruses , 2020, Heliyon.

[19]  V. LeBleu,et al.  Heterogeneous antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain and nucleocapsid with implications for COVID-19 immunity , 2020, JCI insight.

[20]  R. Nenna,et al.  Covid-19 in children: A brief overview after three months experience , 2020, Paediatric Respiratory Reviews.

[21]  O. Laeyendecker,et al.  COVID-19 serology at population scale: SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in saliva , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[22]  H. Hakonarson,et al.  Distinct features of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA response in COVID-19 patients , 2020, European Respiratory Journal.

[23]  R. Davey,et al.  Detection of Nucleocapsid Antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is More Sensitive than Antibody to Spike Protein in COVID-19 Patients , 2020, medRxiv.

[24]  H. Whitaker,et al.  Use of traditional serological methods and oral fluids to assess immunogenicity in children aged 2–16 years after successive annual vaccinations with LAIV , 2020, Vaccine.

[25]  P. Maple Application of Oral Fluid Assays in Support of Mumps, Rubella and Varicella Control Programs , 2015, Vaccines.

[26]  K. Brown,et al.  Oral Fluid Testing during 10 Years of Rubella Elimination, England and Wales , 2010, Emerging infectious diseases.

[27]  James Mudzori,et al.  Field evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of an oral fluid rapid test for HIV, tested at point-of-service sites in rural Zimbabwe. , 2009, AIDS patient care and STDs.

[28]  O. Grusky,et al.  Outcomes of blood and oral fluid rapid HIV testing: a literature review, 2000-2006. , 2007, AIDS patient care and STDs.

[29]  W. Edmunds,et al.  A population-based seroprevalence study of hepatitis A virus using oral fluid in England and Wales. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[30]  N. Andrews,et al.  Validation of a modified commercial assay for the detection of rubella-specific IgG in oral fluid for use in population studies. , 2003, Journal of virological methods.

[31]  N. Gay,et al.  Evolution of surveillance of measles, mumps, and rubella in England and Wales: providing the platform for evidence-based vaccination policy. , 2002, Epidemiologic reviews.

[32]  N. Andrews,et al.  Stability of total and rubella-specific IgG in oral fluid samples: the effect of time and temperature. , 2002, Journal of immunological methods.

[33]  A. Vyse,et al.  A comparison of oral fluid collection devices for use in the surveillance of virus diseases in children. , 2001, Public health.

[34]  J. Fitchen,et al.  Future applications of oral fluid specimen technology. , 1997, The American journal of medicine.

[35]  J. Parry,et al.  Detection of antibody to HIV in saliva: a brief review. , 1994, Clinical and diagnostic virology.

[36]  J. Parry,et al.  Detection of measles, mumps, and rubella antibodies in saliva using antibody capture radioimmunoassay , 1993, Journal of medical virology.

[37]  J. Parry,et al.  The use of saliva for viral diagnosis and screening. , 1988, Epidemiology and Infection.

[38]  J. Parry,et al.  SENSITIVE ASSAYS FOR VIRAL ANTIBODIES IN SALIVA: AN ALTERNATIVE TO TESTS ON SERUM , 1987, The Lancet.

[39]  L. Saleh The use of saliva for the detection of IgG and anti-bodies against rubella virus: comparison of indirect ELISA and antibody capture immunoassay. , 1991, The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association.