Assessment of IgM/IgG Antibody Detection in Comparison with RT-PCR Technique for Diagnostic Purposes in Patients with COVID-19

Hatami, Mahdi; Rashidi, Mojtaba; Naghashpour, Mahshid; Golabi, Sahar; Maghsoudi, Fatemeh; Adelipour, Maryam

doi:10.30699/ijmm.15.5.584

year 15, Issue 5 (September - October 2021) Iran J Med Microbiol 2021, 15(5): 584-591 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.30699/ijmm.15.5.584

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Hatami M, Rashidi M, Naghashpour M, Golabi S, Maghsoudi F, Adelipour M. Assessment of IgM/IgG Antibody Detection in Comparison with RT-PCR Technique for Diagnostic Purposes in Patients with COVID-19. Iran J Med Microbiol 2021; 15 (5) :584-591
URL: http://ijmm.ir/article-1-1378-en.html

Assessment of IgM/IgG Antibody Detection in Comparison with RT-PCR Technique for Diagnostic Purposes in Patients with COVID-19

Mahdi Hatami¹

, Mojtaba Rashidi¹

, Mahshid Naghashpour²

, Sahar Golabi³

, Fatemeh Maghsoudi³

, Maryam Adelipour

⁴

1- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2- Abadan university of medical sciences, Abadan, Iran
3- Abadan University of Medical Sciences, Abadan, Iran
4- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran , mariaadelipour@gmail.com

Abstract: (3520 Views)

Background and Aim: The diagnosis of COVID-19 is an essential step toward controlling the pandemic. For this purpose, a series of laboratory methods have been developed. This study evaluated the efficiency of the ELISA method for COVID-19 IgM and IgG detection.
Materials and Methods: In this case-control study, 46 blood samples from PCR positive COVID-19 patients and 49 samples from PCR negative COVID-19 subjects were collected. Subsequently, the presence of IgM and IgG in all blood samples was assessed using the Pishtaz Teb ELISA kit.
Results: The data demonstrated that among 49 PCR negative, 40 (81.6%) were IgM negative and 9 (19.1%) were IgM positive. Besides, out of the 49 PCR-negative patients, 42 (85.7%) and 7 (14.3%) were IgG negative and positive, respectively. In 46 PCR-positive individuals, 40 (87%) were IgM negative, while 6 (13 %) were IgM positive. Of the 46 PCR-positive patients, 24 (52.2%) were IgG negative, and 22(47.8%) were IgG positive.
Conclusion: Our results showed that detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM using Pishtaz Teb ELISA kit is not enough for COVID diagnosis, but it can serve as a diagnostic RNA supplement to confirm infection with SARS-CoV-2 in approved clinics and other scientific communities, owing to its easy, rapid, and inexpensive availability.

Keywords: Antibody, COVID-19, IgM/IgG, Patients

Full-Text [PDF 481 kb] (1713 Downloads) | | Full-Text (HTML) (1091 Views)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Medical Virology
Received: 2021/07/1 | Accepted: 2021/10/2 | ePublished: 2021/10/15

References

1. Lai C-C, Shih T-P, Ko W-C, Tang H-J, Hsueh P-RJIjoaa. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): The epidemic and the challenges. 2020;55(3):105924. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924] [PMID] [PMCID]

2. Udugama B, Kadhiresan P, Kozlowski HN, Malekjahani A, Osborne M, Li VY, et al. Diagnosing COVID-19: the disease and tools for detection. ACS Nano. 2020;14(4):3822-35. [DOI:10.1021/acsnano.0c02624] [PMID] [PMCID]

3. Yang Y, Peng F, Wang R, Guan K, Jiang T, Xu G, et al. The deadly coronaviruses: The 2003 SARS pandemic and the 2020 novel coronavirus epidemic in China. 2020;109:102434. [DOI:10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102434] [PMID] [PMCID]

4. Rabi FA, Al Zoubi MS, Kasasbeh GA, Salameh DM, Al-Nasser ADJP. SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus disease 2019: what we know so far. Pathogens. 2020;9(3):231. [DOI:10.3390/pathogens9030231] [PMID] [PMCID]

5. Shereen MA, Khan S, Kazmi A, Bashir N, Siddique RJJoar. COVID-19 infection: Origin, transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses. J Adv Res. 2020;24:91-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jare.2020.03.005] [PMID] [PMCID]

6. Pal M, Berhanu G, Desalegn C, Kandi VJC. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2): an update. 2020;12(3). [DOI:10.7759/cureus.7423]

7. Upadhyay SK, Singh R, Singh M, Kumar V, Yadav M, Aggarwal D, et al. COVID-19 in republic of India: A report on situation and precautionary strategies to global pandemic. Bull Env Pharmacol Life Sci. 2020;9(6):39-48.

8. Miłek J, Blicharz-Domańska KJJovr. Coronaviruses in avian species-review with focus on epidemiology and diagnosis in wild birds. Vet Res. 2018;62(3):249. [DOI:10.2478/jvetres-2018-0035] [PMID] [PMCID]

9. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045. [DOI:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045] [PMID] [PMCID]

10. Jiang Y, Yin W, Xu HEJB, communications br. RNA-dependent RNA polymerase: Structure, mechanism, and drug discovery for COVID-19. 2021;538:47-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.08.116] [PMID] [PMCID]

11. Huang Y, Yang C, Xu X-f, Xu W, Liu S-wJAPS. Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. 2020;41(9):1141-9. [DOI:10.1038/s41401-020-0485-4] [PMID] [PMCID]

12. Al-Benna SJAJoU. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 gene expression in human male urological tissues: implications for pathogenesis and virus transmission pathways. 2021;27(1):1-5. [DOI:10.1186/s12301-021-00192-4] [PMID] [PMCID]

13. Walls AC, Park Y-J, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler DJC. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181(2):281-92. e6. [DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058] [PMID] [PMCID]

14. Yan R, Zhang Y, Li Y, Xia L, Guo Y, Zhou QJS. Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by full-length human ACE2. Science. 2020;367(6485):1444-8. [DOI:10.1126/science.abb2762] [PMID] [PMCID]

15. Karimi F, Vaezi AA, Qorbani M, Moghadasi F, Gelsfid SH, Maghoul A, et al. Clinical and laboratory findings in COVID-19 adult hospitalized patients from Alborz province/Iran: comparison of rRT-PCR positive and negative. 2021;21(1):1-8. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-021-05948-5] [PMID] [PMCID]

16. Infantino M, Damiani A, Gobbi FL, Grossi V, Lari B, Macchia D, et al. Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease: benefits, limitations and perspectives. Isr Med Assoc J. 2020;22(4):203-10.

17. Loeffelholz MJ, Tang Y-WJEm, infections. Laboratory diagnosis of emerging human coronavirus infections-the state of the art. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):747-56. [DOI:10.1080/22221751.2020.1745095] [PMID] [PMCID]

18. Cassaniti I, Novazzi F, Giardina F, Salinaro F, Sachs M, Perlini S, et al. Performance of VivaDiag COVID‐19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test is inadequate for diagnosis of COVID‐19 in acute patients referring to emergency room department. Journal of medical virology. 2020. [DOI:10.1002/jmv.25800] [PMID] [PMCID]

19. Lin D, Liu L, Zhang M, Hu Y, Yang Q, Guo J, et al. Evaluations of the serological test in the diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infections during the COVID-19 outbreak. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(12):2271-7. [DOI:10.1007/s10096-020-03978-6] [PMID] [PMCID]

20. Pan Y, Li X, Yang G, Fan J, Tang Y, Zhao J, et al. Serological immunochromatographic approach in diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infected COVID-19 patients. J Infect. 2020;81(1):e28-e32. [DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.051] [PMID] [PMCID]

21. Rashid ZZ, Othman SN, Samat MNA, Ali UK, Wong KKJTMjop. Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serology assays. Malays J Pathol. 2020;42(1):13-21.

22. Lai C-C, Shih T-P, Ko W-C, Tang H-J, Hsueh P-RJIjoaa. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): The epidemic and the challenges. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2020;55(3):105924. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924] [PMID] [PMCID]

23. Xiang F, Wang X, He X, Peng Z, Yang B, Zhang J, et al. Antibody detection and dynamic characteristics in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(8):1930-4. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa461] [PMID] [PMCID]

24. McHugh MLJBm. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med. 2013;23(2):143-9. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2013.018] [PMID] [PMCID]

25. Mo X, Qin W, Fu Q, Guan MJCJoLM. Understanding the influence factors in viral nucleic acid test of 2019 novel coronavirus. Chin J Lab Med. 2020;43(3).

26. Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, Liu W, Liao X, Su Y, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(16):2027-34. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa344] [PMID] [PMCID]

27. Hu F, Shang X, Chen M, Zhang CJCJoID, Microbiology M. Joint detection of serum IgM/IgG antibody is an important key to clinical diagnosis of SARS-COV-2 infection. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2020;2020. [DOI:10.1101/2020.07.07.20146902]

28. Altman DG, Bland JMJB. Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ-BRIT MED J. 1994;309(6947):102. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102] [PMID] [PMCID]

29. Paradiso AV, De Summa S, Loconsole D, Procacci V, Sallustio A, Centrone F, et al. Rapid serological assays and SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: comparative study. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2020;22(10):e19152. [DOI:10.2196/19152] [PMID] [PMCID]

30. Liu R, Liu X, Han H, Shereen MA, Niu Z, Li D, et al. The comparative superiority of IgM-IgG antibody test to real-time reverse transcriptase PCR detection for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. .medRxiv.. 2020. [DOI:10.1101/2020.03.28.20045765]