Comparative analysis of three immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 detection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/1ewjt996Keywords:
COVID-19; ELISA; immunoassays.Abstract
As the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread rapidly around the world starting in late 2019, researchers were intrigued by the emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In many nations, the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the accepted "gold standard" technique to detect COVID-19 because of its rapid process with high-level specificity. To solve the false-positive results caused by real-time RT-PCR test, more immunoassays in serological diagnosis need to be developed such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). When it comes to IgG antibodies, ELISA has excellent specificity and sensitivity, and it has higher accurately resulted in the detection of patients after 7 days symptom, but the process is lengthier. LFIA is the fastest approach but has lower sensitivity with limit detection duration of early stage, and CLIA has short procedure with high sensitivity with required high-costly equipment to test samples. Highly sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis was made achievable by serology-based immunoassay, and ELISA is the best tool to confirmed COVID-19 in patient, and LFIA and CLIA would provide useful additional instruments for SARS-CoV-2 analysis. This research will compare and analyze the application performance of these three detection methods in detecting viruses.
Downloads
References
Yang L, Liu S, Liu J, et al. COVID-19: immunopathogenesis and Immunotherapeutics. Signal transduction and targeted therapy, 2020, 5(1): 128.
Zhang S, Amahong K, Sun X, et al. The miRNA: a small but powerful RNA for COVID-19. Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021, 22(2): 1137-1149.
Tahamtan A, Ardebili A. Real-time RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection: issues affecting the results. Expert review of molecular diagnostics, 2020, 20(5): 453-454.
Mohit E, Rostami Z, Vahidi H. A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection. Expert review of clinical immunology, 2021, 17(6): 573-599.
Mathupal S, Rajendran S N. A comparative study on fourth generation ELISA and rapid assay for diagnosing HIV infection in the high risk group. International Journal of Research, 2019, 5(3): 625.
Kopel J, Goyal H, Perisetti A. Antibody tests for COVID-19, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. Taylor & Francis, 2021, 34(1): 63-72.
Serrano M M, Rodríguez D N, Palop N T, et al. Comparison of commercial lateral flow immunoassays and ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. Journal of clinical virology, 2020, 129: 104529.
Beavis K G, Matushek S M, Abeleda A P F, et al. Evaluation of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies. Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020, 129: 104468.
Ong D S Y, de Man S J, Lindeboom F A, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2020, 26(8): 1094. e7-1094. e10.
Speletas M, Kyritsi M A, Vontas A, et al. Evaluation of two chemiluminescent and three ELISA immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies: implications for disease diagnosis and patients’ management. Frontiers in immunology, 2020, 11: 609242.
Yu H, Wang Z, Jiang Q, et al. Detection of serum IgM and IgG for COVID-19 diagnosis. Sci China Life Sci, 2020, 63: 1678.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







