Abstract
Serological assays for detection of IgG, IgM or IgA against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) play an important role in surveillance, antibody persistence, vaccine coverage and infection rate. Serological assays, including both ELISA and rapid lateral flow assays, are available commercially but the cost limits their accessibility for low resource countries. Although serological assays based on mammalian-expressed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have been previously described these assays need to be validated using samples from local populations within the continent, or country, in which they will be used. Interpretation of results could be influenced by differences in specificity and potential for pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies. In this study, we investigated two laboratory developed serological assays, an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an immunofluorescent assay (IFA), developed using recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, for use in South African populations. The tests were compared with commercially available and South Africa Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAPHRA) approved assays. A panel of 100 residual diagnostic serum samples, collected prior to the pandemic, were tested on three separate occasions to determine a suitable cut-off value for differentiation of positive from negative samples. Specificity of 96 % and 100 % for ELISA and IFA respectively was demonstrated. A total of 82/89 serum samples collected between days 2-94 after onset of illness from patients with a positive molecular result were positive for IgG antibody. The sensitivity of the laboratory developed assays on samples collected > one week after onset of illness was shown to be 100 % and 98.8 % for ELISA and IFA respectively. Positive predictive values were 92.1 % for ELISA and 91.0 % for IFA using characterization of samples as positive based on confirmation of infection using RT-PCR. Serum samples (n = 62) collected from RT-PCR positive patients infected with either ancestral, or emerging variants such as Beta or Delta, tested positive for IgG antibody (62/62) using the laboratory developed assays confirming application of the assays regardless of currently circulating variant during the time of evaluation. High concordance was demonstrated between the laboratory developed assays and the commercial immunoassay among samples collected from South African populations, although the small sample size, especially for the comparison with commercial assays, must be noted. If all quality assurance controls are in place, the use of local laboratory developed assays for high-throughput screening in resource-constrained environments is a realistic alternative option.