RESUMEN
Monitoring the burden and spread of infection with the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, whether within small communities or in large geographical settings, is of paramount importance for public health purposes. Serology, which detects the host antibody response to the infection, is the most appropriate tool for this task, since virus-derived markers are most reliably detected during the acute phase of infection. Here we show that our ELISA protocol, which is based on antibody binding to the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the S1 subunit of the viral Spike protein expressed as a novel fusion protein, detects antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We also show that our ELISA is accurate and versatile. It compares favorably with commercial assays widely used in clinical practice to determine exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, our protocol accommodates use of various blood- and non-blood-derived biospecimens, such as breast milk, as well as dried blood obtained with microsampling cartridges that are appropriate for remote collection. As a result, our RBD-based ELISA protocols are well suited for seroepidemiology and other large-scale studies requiring parsimonious sample collection outside of healthcare settings.
RESUMEN
Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.