Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 25, Number 10—October 2019
Research

Comparison of Serologic Assays for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus

Ruth Harvey, Giada MattiuzzoComments to Author , Mark Hassall, Andrea Sieberg, Marcel A. Müller, Christian Drosten, Peter Rigsby, Christopher J. Oxenford, and study participants
Author affiliations: National Institute for Biological Standards and Control—MHRA, Potters Bar, UK (R. Harvey, G. Mattiuzzo, M. Hassall, P. Rigsby); Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (A. Sieberg, M.A. Müller, C. Drosten); German Centre for Infection Research, Berlin (M.A. Müller, C. Drosten); World Health Organization, Lyon, France (C.J. Oxenford).

Main Article

Table 3

Summary of all data returned in collaborative study of serologic assays for MERS-CoV*

Assay type Lab Method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Endpoint
ELISA 01 S1 ELISA† 3,200 <100 <100 3,200 6,400 <100 <100 <100 800 1,600 1,600 1,600 <100 <100 <100 5,600 <100 1200
ELISA 03 Primary screening EIA 81,920 <20 <20 51,200 >327,680 <20 <20 <20 5,120 20,480 20,480 20,480 <20 <20 <20 81,920 <20 3200
Neut 01 PRNT 1,280 <20 <20 320 1,280 <20 <20 <20 80 160 160 320 <20 <20 <20 640 <20 80
Neut 03 MERS wt MN 1,280 <10 <10 80 1,280 <10 <10 <10 40 160 80 80 <10 <10 <10 160 <10 40
Neut 04 ppNT 1,280 <10 <10 160 160 <10 <10 <10 10 80 40 40 <10 <10 <10 80 <10 10
Neut 04 TCID50 MN 160 <10 <10 80 40 <10 <10 <10 <10 40 20 10 <10 <10 <10 40 <10 <10
Neut 04 PRNT (ED50) >320 <10 <10 160 >320 <10 <10 <10 80 160 80 80 <10 <10 <10 160 <10 20
Neut 04 PRNT (ED90) >320 <10 <10 80 80 <10 <10 <10 20 80 40 20 <10 <10 <10 80 <10 10
Neut 05 PRNT 2,932 <100 <100 1,111 >6,400 <100 <100 <100 444 1,010 3,284 804 <100 <100 <100 1,313 <100 933
Neut 06 PRNT 640 <20 <20 320 640 <20 <20 <20 226 320 320 452 <20 <20 <20 905 <20 113
Neut 08 ppNT 10,240 <10 <10 320 1,280 <10 <10 <10 80 320 160 320 <10 <10 <10 640 <10 80
Neut 10 PRNT (ED90) 1,626 <32 <32 256 645 <32 <32 <32 64 256 102 64 <32 <32 <32 645 <32 102
Other
01
S1 microarray
231
<20
<20
1,152
1,251
<20
<20
<20
226
676
681
463
<20
<20
<20
785
<20
90
Qualitative
ELISA 01 S1 ELISA‡ BL/P N N P P N N N BL/N P P P N N N P N BL
ELISA 02 N titration P N N N P N N N P N P P N N N P N P
ELISA 02 S titration P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
ELISA 07 ELISA IgG‡ P N N P P N N N Equiv P P P N N N P N P
ELISA 09 RBD-based ELISA P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
ELISA 09 S1 ELISA P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
ELISA 05 Alpha NP IgG P N N N P N N N P N P P N P N P N P
ELISA 10 ELISA IgG‡ P N N P P N N N Weak P P P P N N N P N Weak P
Neut 09 ppNT P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
Other 03 Secondary screening IFO P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
Other 06 IIFT‡ P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
Other 06 rIIFT† P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P
Other 07 IF† P N N P P N N N Equiv/P P P P N N N P N P/Equiv
Other 10 IIFT‡ P N N P P N N N P P P P N N N P N P

*Sample numbers in gray shading are positive samples, those in white are negative. Green shading indicates correct diagnosis; red shading indicates incorrect diagnosis, yellow indicates borderline or equivocal results. Data shown in the top part of the table are antibody titers as measured in each assay format. BL, borderline; CoV, coronavirus; ED, effective dose; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; Equiv, equivocal; HCoV, human CoV; IF, immunofluorescence; IFO, immunofocus assay; IIFT, indirect immunofluorescence test; MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome; MN, microneutralization; N, negative; Neut, neutral; P, positive; ppNT, pseudoparticle neutralization test; PRNT, plaque reduction neutralization assay; RBD, receptor-binding domain; rIIFT, recombinant indirect immunofluorescence test; S1, spike protein.
†In-house assay.
‡Assay by Euroimmun (https://www.euroimmun.com).

Main Article

1Study participants who contributed data are listed at the end of this article.

Page created: September 17, 2019
Page updated: September 17, 2019
Page reviewed: September 17, 2019
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external