Extended Data Fig. 6: Comparison of the ELISA and the spLUC results.
From: Engineering luminescent biosensors for point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection
a, Signals from the S sensor spLUC assay (cohort 1, 57 samples) correlate very well with S-RBD ELISA anti-Fab signals (R = 0.91), moderately well with anti-IgG signals (R = 0.43), and poorly with anti-IgM signals for cohort 1 (R = −0.066). Line represents linear regression. b, Signals from the S sensor spLUC assay (cohort 2, 40 samples with anti-Fab detection, 47 samples with anti-IgM/IgG detection) correlate very well with S-RBD ELISA anti-Fab signals (R = 0.84) and with anti-IgG signals (R = 0.86), but poorly with anti-IgM signals for cohort 1 (R = 0.29). Line represents linear regression. c, Signals from the S sensor (cohort 3, 87 samples) correlate well with S-RBD ELISA anti-IgG signals (R = 0.88). For a-c, R values and P values (two-tail) of a non-parametric Spearman correlation analysis are labeled in the graphs. Lines represent linear regression. d, e, f, The seronegative samples in the anti-S spLUC assay also showed low anti-Fab or anti-IgG signals in ELISA serology tests for d, cohort 1 (negative samples (9), positive samples (48)), e, cohort 2, (negative samples (5), positive samples (35)), and f, cohort 3, (negative samples (3), positive samples (53)). Horizontal lines represent the median value. For all graphs, dots represent the average of two technical replicates from n=1 independent experiment.
