Next Article in Journal
Lung Ultrasound Score in Neonates with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH-LUS): A Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multivariant Surrogate Neutralization Assay Identifies Variant-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Profiles in Primary SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection
Previous Article in Journal
DBE-Net: Dual Boundary-Guided Attention Exploration Network for Polyp Segmentation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Evaluation of an Antigen Home Test Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Stacking Pad for SARS-CoV-2 Screening with Nasal and Salivary Swab Samples
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/diagnostics13050897
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Development of a Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antibodies on Dried Blood Spot by DELFIA Immunoassay

by
Verena Damiani
1,2,*,
Erika Pizzinato
1,2,
Ilaria Cicalini
1,2,
Gianmaria Demattia
1,
Mirco Zucchelli
1,2,
Luca Natale
1,
Claudia Palmarini
1,
Claudia Di Marzio
1,
Luca Federici
1,2,
Vincenzo De Laurenzi
1,2 and
Damiana Pieragostino
1,2
1
Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
2
Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine and Dentistry, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(5), 897; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050897
Submission received: 1 February 2023 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 25 February 2023 / Published: 27 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein are produced by the immune system in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but most available vaccines developed to fight the pandemic spread target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The aim of this study was to improve the detection of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid by providing a simple and robust method applicable to a large population. For this purpose, we developed a DELFIA immunoassay on dried blood spots (DBSs) by converting a commercially available IVD ELISA assay. A total of forty-seven paired plasma and dried blood spots were collected from vaccinated and/or previously SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. The DBS-DELFIA resulted in a wider dynamic range and higher sensitivity for detecting antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid. Moreover, the DBS-DELFIA showed a good total intra-assay coefficient of variability of 14.6%. Finally, a strong correlation was found between SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies detected by the DBS-DELFIA and ELISA immunoassays (r = 0.9). Therefore, the association of dried blood sampling with DELFIA technology may provide an easier, minimally invasive, and accurate measurement of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies in previously SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. In conclusion, these results justify further research to develop a certified IVD DBS-DELFIA assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies useful for diagnostics as well as for serosurveillance studies.

1. Introduction

Today, almost three years after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in China, the COVID-19 pandemic continues spreading across the world. Indeed, despite a massive vaccination campaign that has been activated against the pandemic worldwide, new highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants are continuously emerging, and it is becoming increasingly clear that they may evade neutralizing antibodies generated by previous infection and/or vaccination and thus contribute to the virus circulation [1,2,3,4].
SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus [5]. The four main structural proteins encoded by the genome include the spike (S), membrane (M), envelope (E), and nucleocapsid (N) proteins [6]. The S protein is a trimeric protein comprising two subunits, namely S1 and S2. The S1 subunit mediates binding to host cells via interactions between its receptor-binding domain (RBD) and the human receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), whereas the S2 subunit is responsible for membrane fusion, which is required for virus entry [7]. The N protein, in which the viral genome is encapsulated, plays a fundamental function in viral RNA transcription, replication, and virion assembly. Although the N protein is highly immunogenic and a major target for antibody response [8,9], the S protein was employed to develop vaccines first. The M and E viral structural proteins have not been investigated as vaccine targets due to their inability to induce complete immune protection; indeed, only a significant cellular immune response was elicited, whereas no robust humoral immunity was detected [10]. Currently, the majority of vaccines available on the European market target the spike protein, which is the leading immunogenic protein [11,12]. However, recently, the N protein has attracted much attention for vaccine development because it is more conservative, more stable, and has fewer mutations than the S protein [13,14,15].
In response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, most individuals develop antibodies to the N and S proteins within 1 or 2 weeks, and these antibodies can be measured as an indicator of COVID-19 prevalence; moreover, they allow for the monitoring of seroconversion in the population and are essential elements in developing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control [16,17,18]. Plasma and sera isolated from venous blood represent the conventional sample types used for the evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. However, the collection of these samples is invasive and requires trained personnel and equipment for immediate processing. Once collected, plasma and sera must be stored and shipped refrigerated. Therefore, dried blood spot (DBS) testing, already applied in the fields of anti-doping, toxicology, newborn screening, and the diagnosis of infectious diseases, has been validated for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies against the N and S proteins [19,20,21,22,23,24].
The most commonly used method for serological tests is the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several ELISA methods were developed to determine SARS-CoV-2 antigens and antibodies, qualitatively and quantitatively, with great sensitivity and specificity [25,26,27]. However, a colorimetric ELISA is affected by a narrow linear range for the optical density (OD), which is common to absorbance-based measurements. For this reason, an unknown sample concentration could fall outside the standard curve, introducing the challenge of testing multiple dilutions from the same, potentially limited, sample.
The aim of this study was to develop a time-resolved fluorometry-based dissociation-enhanced lanthanide fluorescence immunoassay for detecting nucleocapsid antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 by using dried blood spots (DBS-DELFIA). The newly developed assay was compared to a commercially available, certified in vitro diagnostic (IVD) qualitative ELISA. The DBS-DELFIA test resulted in higher sensitivity and a wider dynamic range compared to the ELISA test. These results justify further research to develop a certified IVD for SARS-CoV-2 IgG anti-N detection by DBS-DELFIA technology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

Forty-seven subjects were enrolled in this study. Sex, age, vaccination doses, and SARS-CoV-2 infection history are reported in Table S1. The study was conducted at the Center for Studies and Advanced Technologies (CAST), “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Italy, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the approval no. 16 of 1 July 2021 of the Ethics Committee of “G. D’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara. Written informed consent forms were obtained from all the enrolled subjects.

2.2. Plasma and Dried Blood Spots Collection

Whole blood was collected via venipuncture in Vacumed sodium citrate tubes (3.2%, FL MEDICAL s.r.l., Padova, Italy) to prevent coagulation, and processed within 6 h of collection. DBS samples were prepared from venous whole blood by transferring approximately 40 µL of blood to each circle of a filter paper card. Cards were then air-dried for at least two hours, placed into bags with a desiccant dehumidifier, and stored at −20 °C. The remaining whole blood was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 12 min. Plasma aliquots were taken and transferred into sterile microtubes and stored at −80 °C until analysis.

2.3. SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid IgG ELISA

SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG ELISA kit [CE-IVD] (ImmunoDiagnostics, Hong Kong, China) was used following manufacturer’s recommendations. Briefly, 50 μL of negative control, 100 μL of the test sample (diluted plasma 1:100), and 100 μL of Assay Buffer (ImmunoDiagnostics) as blank were added onto the antigen-coated plate in duplicate, as the test recommended. Subsequently, the plate was incubated at room temperature (RT) for 1 h. Then, each well was manually washed 3 times with Wash Buffer (ImmunoDiagnostics) included in the kit. Next, 100 μL of Detection Solution (ImmunoDiagnostics) was added to each well and incubated for 1 h at RT. Then, after the wash step, 100 μL of Substrate Solution (ImmunoDiagnostics) was added to each well and incubated for 15 min at RT, protected from light. Finally, we added 100 μL of Stop Solution (ImmunoDiagnostics) to each well, and, after 10 min, absorbance was measured at 450 nm by Victor Nivo microplate reader (PerkinElmer, Turku, Finland).

2.4. Conversion from SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid IgG ELISA to SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid IgG DBS-DELFIA

The antigen-coated plate from SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG ELISA kit (ImmunoDiagnostics) was used. DBS disks were punched out into 3.2 mm disks by using the PerkinElmer DBS Puncher, while plasma samples were diluted 1:100 with DELFIA Assay Buffer (PerkinElmer). Next, DBS disks were extracted with 100 μL DELFIA Assay Buffer directly onto the antigen-coated plate, whereas 100 μL of diluted plasma was transferred to the plate, and both DBS disks and plasma samples were incubated for 2 h at RT on a plate shaker set at 300 rpm. Then, after removing DBS disks and plasma samples, each well was manually washed 4 times with DELFIA Wash Solution (PerkinElmer). Next, 100 μL (200 ng/mL) of DELFIA Eu-labeled Anti-human IgG antibody (PerkinElmer) was added to each well and incubated for 1 h at RT on a plate shaker set at 300 rpm. Subsequently, each well was washed 6 times with DELFIA Wash Solution. Finally, 200 μL of DELFIA Enhancement Solution (PerkinElmer) was added, and the plate was read after 10 min of incubation time by Victor Nivo microplate reader using fluorescence (TRF) settings.

2.5. Linearity, Precision Study, and Statistical Analysis

To test the linearity of both ELISA and DBS-DELFIA immunoassays, a SARS-CoV-2 anti-N IgG positive sample was diluted sequentially 12 times with a seronegative plasma and tested in duplicate. Dilution percentages are listed in Table S2. Data for linearity and intra-assay precision were collected by the same operator. All statistical analyses were carried out using GraphPad Prism 9.0.2 software (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Conversion from ELISA to DBS-DELFIA Immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antibody Detection

The study population included fifteen subjects who had never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, thirty-two subjects who reported a positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) test, and forty-three individuals who had completed the vaccination schedule. The age of the subjects ranged from 25 to 60 (mean = 35.6), and 70% were female (Table S1). Firstly, we conducted an experiment to set up the method for converting ELISA into DBS-DELFIA by using paired plasma samples and dried blood spots from two subjects, one negative and one positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The cut-off value used by the qualitative SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody ELISA kit was 0.2 OD. We analyzed, in parallel and in duplicate, the plasma diluted 100 times both by ELISA and by DELFIA, and the paired DBSs by DELFIA following the manufactures’ instructions (Supplementary Table S3). The positive subject, with 2.47 ± 0.06 OD, had almost comparable values for plasma DELFIA and DBS-DELFIA (510,238 ± 11,641.8 TRF and 496,748 ± 96,228.75 TRF, respectively). On the other hand, the negative subject showed different values between plasma DELFIA and DBS-DELFIA (24,067.5 ± 678.11 TRF and 93,547.5 ± 12,087.99 TRF). For this reason, we attempted to improve the DBS-DELFIA protocol using the commercially available ELISA-to-DELFIA conversion kit protocol distributed by PerkinElmer, which is fully described in the Section 2.

3.2. DBS-DELFIA Method Linearity and Performance Assessment

To prove the linearity of the method for quantifying IgG anti-N, we performed sequential dilutions using two blood samples, one that tested negative (dilution percentage 0, 0.07 OD) and one that tested positive (dilution percentage 100, 3.33 OD) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies by the ELISA method. We analyzed 12 paired dilutions by both ELISA and the new DBS-DELFIA method, using different sample matrices (plasma or DBS) (Table S2). The DELFIA method had a wider dynamic range than conventional ELISA (Figure 1). While the linear range of DELFIA covered dilution percentages up to 100 with an R2 equal to 0.97, the ELISA method only showed linearity below the 40-dilution percentage (R2 = 0.97).
Next, we examined the cut-off value referred to in the ELISA kit and noted that for 1:100 (0.191 ± 0.03 OD) and 2:100 (0.241 ± 0.03 OD) dilutions, the test resulted in negative and positive results, respectively. However, the paired samples analyzed by DBS-DELFIA measured 30,351 ± 4912 TRF and 53,652 ± 17,674 TRF, showing a higher sensitivity potential. In order to evaluate intra-assay precision, we evaluated the coefficient of variability in percentage (CV%) of both obtained curves. We obtained 7% and 15.2 CV% for ELISA and DBS-DELFIA, respectively. Finally, we calculated the Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ) for both methods by using blank sample replicates (n = 8), obtaining 0.09 and 0.18 values, respectively, for the ELISA immunoassay, and 2797 and 3787 values for the DBS-DELFIA one.

3.3. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Anti-N Detection by ELISA vs. DBS-DELFIA Immunoassay

All paired plasma samples and dried blood spots were collected and analyzed by both ELISA and DBS-DELFIA immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies (Table S4). A significant positive correlation (r = 0.9, p < 0.0001) between IgG anti-N measured on DBS and plasma with DELFIA and ELISA immunoassays, respectively, was observed (Figure 2).
Fifteen subjects had never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using NPS. At the same time, thirty-two subjects tested positive at different times after being tested for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies. All subjects without SARS-CoV-2 infection tested negative on the ELISA test (OD < 0.2). Overall, these subjects presented a mean TRF below 2.0 × 104. Despite significant differences in IgG anti-N levels evaluated by both ELISA and DBS-DELFIA between subjects who were negative or positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (Figure 3A,C), the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed higher sensitivity (87.5%, AUC: 0.91, p < 0.0001) for the DBS-DELFIA assay compared to ELISA (71.88%, AUC: 0.92, p < 0.0001) while the specificity was 100% for both assays (Figure 3B,D). Moreover, the ROC analysis showed that 87.5% sensitivity was achieved above 20,120 TRF; therefore, we set the cut-off value for the DBS-DELFIA assay at 2.0 × 104 (Figure 3C). Five samples (PZ 24, 25, 32, 44, and 47) tested negative when analyzed with ELISA but appeared above the assessed cut-off value when analyzed with the DBS-DELFIA method. By calculating the percentage difference between the cut-off value and LOQ for both evaluated methods, we observed that the ELISA test’s positivity limit was 2% higher than the LOQ, while the DBS-DELFIA positivity limit was more than 80% higher than its relative LOQ.

4. Discussion

With thousands of new cases daily, the ongoing scenario indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will continue to evolve [28]. Indeed, as SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread in human populations with fewer susceptible hosts, the risk of selecting more infectious variants or antibody-evasive mutations is expected to increase. Even to avoid undiagnosed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in emergencies [29], viral tests are used for the assessment of current infection with SARS-CoV-2 by testing respiratory tract specimens (throat swabs, sputum, nasopharyngeal swabs, nasal swabs, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid). There are two main types of viral tests: nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) and antigen tests [30]. However, the collection of samples from the respiratory tract is relatively complicated and causes significant discomfort to subjects. Moreover, the costs of NAATs continue to remain high. Therefore, growing interest has been placed in developing serological tests for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to help identify people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, have recovered from COVID-19, or have been vaccinated [31,32]. Notably, DBS specimens have been seen to be reliably used as an alternative to serum samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement, facilitating serosurveillance efforts [33,34]. We have already validated the GSP®®/DELFIA®® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Kit for measuring anti-S1 antibodies by using DBS, demonstrating the feasibility of such serological tests for high-throughput serosurveillance [35]. However, to ascertain whether a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred among subjects who have previously been vaccinated for the prevention of COVID-19, high-sensitivity immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies are required. Notably, there is evidence of longer durability of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination with the mRNA vaccine in subjects with previous infection, and the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to be higher in previously uninfected individuals [36,37]. This is why knowing the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody profile is extremely important.
For this purpose, we established a dissociation-enhanced lanthanide fluorescence (DELFIA) immunoassay for the evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibody status by analyzing dried blood spots (DBS-DELFIA). We converted a commercially available CE-IVD SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein IgG ELISA kit validated with serum or plasma samples into the DBS-DELFIA. Our results confirm a wider dynamic range and higher sensitivity of the DBS-DELFIA compared to the ELISA immunoassay in recognizing IgG anti-N against SARS-CoV-2, revealing lower amounts of antibodies even when several days have passed since the previous infection. Moreover, the total intra-assay coefficient of variability of the DBS-DELFIA was 14.6%, indicating good assay precision. Finally, a strong correlation between SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies detected by the DBS-DELFIA and ELISA immunoassays was found (r = 0.9). Therefore, the association of dried blood sampling with DELFIA technology, in addition to a simple, non-invasive approach and little time-consuming sample preparation, may provide a more sensitive and accurate measurement of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies than tests currently available, particularly for low detectable or higher quantizable antibody levels among SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects, with the further potential of being fully automated [35].

5. Conclusions

In summary, we developed a new serological immunoassay specifically for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies employing DELFIA technology. The assay showed increased sensitivity and appears to be particularly suitable for high-throughput serosurveillance studies, thus justifying further research aimed at developing a certified IVD DBS-DELFIA assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics13050897/s1, Table S1: Clinical parameters of the 47 plasma-DBS paired samples collected. Table S2: Linearity assessment of ELISA and DBS-DELFIA methods analyzing SARS-CoV-2 IgG anti-N on sequential dilutions. Table S3: Data of the set-up experiment for ELISA to DELFIA and next to DBS-DELFIA conversion. Table S4: Data of analytical sensitivity of ELISA and DBS-DELFIA immunoassays used to evaluate assay precision.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.D., I.C. and D.P.; Methodology, V.D. and E.P.; Sample Collection, G.D., M.Z., C.P., C.D.M. and L.N.; Formal analysis, V.D.; Data curation, V.D. and D.P.; Writing—original draft preparation, V.D. and E.P.; Writing—review and editing, D.P., L.F. and V.D.L.; Funding acquisition, V.D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of “G. d’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy (protocol no. 16 of 1 July 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dhama, K.; Nainu, F.; Frediansyah, A.; Yatoo, M.I.; Mohapatra, R.K.; Chakraborty, S.; Zhou, H.; Islam, R.; Mamada, S.S.; Kusuma, H.I.; et al. Global emerging Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2: Impacts, challenges and strategies. J. Infect. Public Health 2023, 16, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guimarães, P.O.; Quirk, D.; Furtado, R.H.; Maia, L.N.; Saraiva, J.F.; Antunes, M.O.; Kalil Filho, R.; Junior, V.M.; Soeiro, A.M.; Tognon, A.P.; et al. Emerging Variants of SARS-CoV-2 And Novel Therapeutics Against Coronavirus (COVID-19). N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 385, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Akkız, H. The Biological Functions and Clinical Significance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Corcern. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 849217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmad, L. Implication of SARS-CoV-2 Immune Escape Spike Variants on Secondary and Vaccine Breakthrough Infections. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 4563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alexandersen, S.; Chamings, A.; Bhatta, T.R. SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs in diagnostic samples are not an indicator of active replication. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abavisani, M.; Rahimian, K.; Mahdavi, B.; Tokhanbigli, S.; Siasakht, M.M.; Farhadi, A.; Kodori, M.; Mahmanzar, M.; Meshkat, Z. Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins: A global analysis. Virol. J. 2022, 19, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schaub, J.M.; Chou, C.-W.; Kuo, H.-C.; Javanmardi, K.; Hsieh, C.-L.; Goldsmith, J.; DiVenere, A.M.; Le, K.C.; Wrapp, D.; Byrne, P.O.; et al. Expression and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. Nat. Protoc. 2021, 16, 5339–5356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lutomski, C.A.; El-Baba, T.J.; Bolla, J.R.; Robinson, C.V. Multiple Roles of SARS-CoV-2 N Protein Facilitated by Proteoform-Specific Interactions with RNA, Host Proteins, and Convalescent Antibodies. JACS Au 2021, 1, 1147–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bai, Z.; Cao, Y.; Liu, W.; Li, J. The SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein and Its Role in Viral Structure, Biological Functions, and a Potential Target for Drug or Vaccine Mitigation. Viruses 2021, 13, 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chen, J.; Deng, Y.; Huang, B.; Han, D.; Wang, W.; Huang, M.; Zhai, C.; Zhao, Z.; Yang, R.; Zhao, Y.; et al. DNA Vaccines Expressing the Envelope and Membrane Proteins Provide Partial Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 in Mice. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, M.; Wang, H.; Tian, L.; Pang, Z.; Yang, Q.; Huang, T.; Fan, J.; Song, L.; Tong, Y.; Fan, H. COVID-19 vaccine development: Milestones, lessons and prospects. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hassine, I.H. COVID-19 vaccines and variants of concern: A review. Rev. Med. Virol. 2021, 32, e2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oronsky, B.; Larson, C.; Caroen, S.; Hedjran, F.; Sanchez, A.; Prokopenko, E.; Reid, T. Nucleocapsid as a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 122, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, W.; Cheng, Y.; Zhou, H.; Sun, C.; Zhang, S. The SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein: Its role in the viral life cycle, structure and functions, and use as a potential target in the development of vaccines and diagnostics. Virol. J. 2023, 20, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Feng, W.; Xiang, Y.; Wu, L.; Chen, Z.; Li, Q.; Chen, J.; Guo, Y.; Xia, D.; Chen, N.; Zhang, L.; et al. Nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 is a potential target for developing new generation of vaccine. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2022, 36, e24479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Damasceno, D.H.P.; Amaral, A.A.; Silva, C.A.; Simões e Silva, A.C. The impact of Vaccination worldwide on SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Review on Vaccine Mechanisms, Results of Clinical Trials, Vaccinal Coverage and Interactions with Novel Variants. Curr. Med. Chem. 2022, 29, 2673–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nair, S.; Chen, X. Biology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the humoral immunoresponse: A systematic review of evidence to support global policy-level actions and research. Glob. Health J. 2021, 6, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Coltart, C.E.M.; Wells, D.; Sutherland, E.; Fowler, A. National cross-sectional survey of 1.14 million NHS staff SARS-CoV-2 serology tests: A comparison of NHS staff with regional community seroconversion rates. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e049703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Galla, L.; Cosma, C.; Bertan, M.; Altinier, S.; Zaninotto, M.; Basso, D.; Burlina, A.; Padoan, A.; Plebani, M. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Italy in Newborn Dried Blood Spots. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2022, 61, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, F.; Nguyen, M.; Vijayakumar, P.; Kaplan, A.; Meir, A.; Dai, Y.; Wang, E.; Walsh, H.; Ring, A.M.; Omer, S.B.; et al. Newborn Dried Blood Spots for Serologic Surveys of COVID-19. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2020, 39, e454–e456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Havers, F.P.; Reed, C.; Lim, T.; Montgomery, J.M.; Klena, J.D.; Hall, A.J.; Fry, A.M.; Cannon, D.L.; Chiang, C.-F.; Gibbons, A.; et al. Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, 23 March–12 May 2020. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 180, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Styer, L.M.; Hoen, R.; Rock, J.; Yauney, E.; Nemeth, K.; Bievenue, R.; Parker, M.M. High-Throughput Multiplex SARS-CoV-2 IgG Microsphere Immunoassay for Dried Blood Spots: A Public Health Strategy for Enhanced Serosurvey Capacity. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0013421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zava, T.T.; Zava, D.T. Validation of dried blood spot sample modifications to two commercially available COVID-19 IgG antibody immunoassays. Bioanalysis 2021, 13, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Damjanovic, A.; Styer, L.M.; Nemeth, K.; Yauney, E.; Rock, J.M.; Bievenue, R.; Hoen, R.; Ehrbar, D.; Kay, D.M.; Caggana, M.; et al. Utility of Newborn Dried Blood Spots to Ascertain Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among Individuals Giving Birth in New York State, November 2019 to November 2021. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2227995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Luo, J.; Brakel, A.; Krizsan, A.; Ludwig, T.; Mötzing, M.; Volke, D.; Lakowa, N.; Grünewald, T.; Lehmann, C.; Wolf, J.; et al. Sensitive and Specific Serological ELISA for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections. Virol. J. 2022, 19, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jacot, D.; Moraz, M.; Coste, A.T.; Aubry, C.; Sacks, J.A.; Greub, G.; Croxatto, A. Evaluation of sixteen ELISA SARS-CoV-2 serological tests. J. Clin. Virol. 2021, 142, 104931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rivera-Olivero, I.A.; Henríquez-Trujillo, A.R.; Kyriakidis, N.C.; Ortiz-Prado, E.; Laglaguano, J.C.; Vallejo-Janeta, A.P.; Lozada, T.; Garcia-Bereguiain, M.A. Diagnostic Performance of Seven Commercial COVID-19 Serology Tests Available in South America. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard|WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard with Vaccination Data. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  29. Papi, C.; Spagni, G.; Alexandre, A.; Calabresi, P.; Della Marca, G.; Broccolini, A. Unprotected stroke management in an undiagnosed case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2020, 29, 104981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. COVID-19 Testing: What You Need to Know|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.html (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  31. Lisboa Bastos, M.; Tavaziva, G.; Abidi, S.K.; Campbell, J.R.; Haraoui, L.-P.; Johnston, J.C.; Lan, Z.; Law, S.; MacLean, E.; Trajman, A.; et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020, 370, m2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zheng, X.; Duan, R.H.; Gong, F.; Wei, X.; Dong, Y.; Chen, R.; Liang, M.Y.; Tang, C.; Lu, L. Accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 923525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sims, M.D.; Podolsky, R.H.; Childers, K.L.; Higgins, B.; Trueman, J.; Homayouni, R.; Voss, D.R.; Berkiw-Scenna, N.; Keil, H.; Kennedy, R.H.; et al. Dried blood spots are a valid alternative to venipuncture for COVID-19 antibody testing. J. Immunol. Methods 2023, 513, 113420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Toh, Z.Q.; Higgins, R.A.; Anderson, J.; Mazarakis, N.; Do, L.A.H.; Rautenbacher, K.; Ramos, P.; Dohle, K.; Tosif, S.; Crawford, N.; et al. The use of dried blood spots for the serological evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. J. Public Health 2021, 44, e260–e263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cicalini, I.; del Boccio, P.; Zucchelli, M.; Rossi, C.; Natale, L.; de Mattia, G.; de Bellis, D.; Damiani, V.; Tommolini, M.L.; Pizzinato, E.; et al. Validation of the GSP®/DELFIA® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Kit Using Dried Blood Samples for High-Throughput Serosurveillance and Standardized Quantitative Measurement of Anti-Spike S1 IgG Antibody Responses Post-Vaccination. Vaccines 2022, 10, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stellini, R.; Gianello, R.; Gomarasca, W. Durability of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination with mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is longer in subjects with previous infection: Could the booster dose be delayed? Infection 2022, 50, 1573–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hall, V.; Foulkes, S.; Insalata, F.; Kirwan, P.; Saei, A.; Atti, A.; Wellington, E.; Khawam, J.; Munro, K.; Cole, M.; et al. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after COVID-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 1207–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 13 00897 g001 550
Figure 1. DBS-DELFIA vs. ELISA dilutions linearity range. (A) DBS-DELFIA dilutions results are expressed as TRF, whereas ELISA results are expressed as OD values. (B) Magnification of rectangular black dashed section highlighting ELISA linearity range. Red dashed line expressed ELISA cut-off value (0.2 OD).
Figure 1. DBS-DELFIA vs. ELISA dilutions linearity range. (A) DBS-DELFIA dilutions results are expressed as TRF, whereas ELISA results are expressed as OD values. (B) Magnification of rectangular black dashed section highlighting ELISA linearity range. Red dashed line expressed ELISA cut-off value (0.2 OD).
Diagnostics 13 00897 g001
Diagnostics 13 00897 g002 550
Figure 2. Correlation between DBS-DELFIA and plasma ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG antibody detection.
Figure 2. Correlation between DBS-DELFIA and plasma ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG antibody detection.
Diagnostics 13 00897 g002
Diagnostics 13 00897 g003 550
Figure 3. ELISA vs. DBS-DELFIA performance analysis. (A,C) Scatter plots and (B,D) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody detection by ELISA and DBS-DELFIA, respectively. IgG anti-N concentration in each subject. The plots show mean ± standard deviation. ROC curves indicate the area under the curve (AUC). **** p < 0.0001.
Figure 3. ELISA vs. DBS-DELFIA performance analysis. (A,C) Scatter plots and (B,D) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody detection by ELISA and DBS-DELFIA, respectively. IgG anti-N concentration in each subject. The plots show mean ± standard deviation. ROC curves indicate the area under the curve (AUC). **** p < 0.0001.
Diagnostics 13 00897 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Damiani, V.; Pizzinato, E.; Cicalini, I.; Demattia, G.; Zucchelli, M.; Natale, L.; Palmarini, C.; Di Marzio, C.; Federici, L.; De Laurenzi, V.; et al. Development of a Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antibodies on Dried Blood Spot by DELFIA Immunoassay. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050897

AMA Style

Damiani V, Pizzinato E, Cicalini I, Demattia G, Zucchelli M, Natale L, Palmarini C, Di Marzio C, Federici L, De Laurenzi V, et al. Development of a Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antibodies on Dried Blood Spot by DELFIA Immunoassay. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(5):897. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050897

Chicago/Turabian Style

Damiani, Verena, Erika Pizzinato, Ilaria Cicalini, Gianmaria Demattia, Mirco Zucchelli, Luca Natale, Claudia Palmarini, Claudia Di Marzio, Luca Federici, Vincenzo De Laurenzi, and et al. 2023. "Development of a Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antibodies on Dried Blood Spot by DELFIA Immunoassay" Diagnostics 13, no. 5: 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050897

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop