Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), March 2020

Open access
Perera, Ranawaka APM, Mok, Chris KP, Tsang, Owen TY, Lv, Huibin, Ko, Ronald LW, Wu, Nicholas C, Yuan, Meng, Leung, Wai Shing, Chan, Jacky MC, Chik, Thomas SH, Choi, Chris YC, Leung, Kathy, Chan, Kin Ho, Chan, Karl CK, Li, Ka-Chi, Wu, Joseph T, Wilson, Ian A, Monto, Arnold S, Poon, Leo LM, Peiris, Malik·2020·Eurosurveillance

Abstract

Background: The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has major impacts on health systems, the economy and society. Assessing infection attack rates in the population is critical for estimating disease severity and herd immunity which is needed to calibrate public health interventions. We have previously shown that it is possible to achieve this in real time to impact public health decision making. Aim: Our objective was to develop and evaluate serological assays applicable in large-scale sero-epidemiological studies. Methods: We developed an ELISA to detect IgG and IgM antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated its sensitivity and specificity in combination with confirmatory microneutralisation (MN) and 90% plaque reduction neutralisation tests (PRNT 90) in 51 sera from 24 patients with virologically confirmed COVID-19 and in age-stratified sera from 200 healthy controls. Results: IgG and IgM RBD ELISA, MN and PRNT 90 were reliably positive after 29 days from illness onset with no detectable cross-reactivity in age-stratified controls. We found that PRNT 90 tests were more sensitive in detecting antibody than MN tests carried out with the conventional 100 tissue culture infectious dose challenge. Heparinised plasma appeared to reduce the infectivity of the virus challenge dose and may confound interpretation of neutralisation test. Conclusion: Using IgG ELISA based on the RBD of the spike protein to screen sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibody, followed by confirmation using PRNT 90, is a valid approach for large-scale sero-epidemiology studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.16.2000421

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Perera, R. A., Mok, C. K., Tsang, O. T., Lv, H., Ko, R. L., Wu, N. C., Yuan, M., Leung, W. S., Chan, J. M., Chik, T. S., Choi, C. Y., Leung, K., Chan, K. H., Chan, K. C., Li, K.-C., Wu, J. T., Wilson, I. A., Monto, A. S., Poon, L. L., & Peiris, M.
Venue
Eurosurveillance
Published
2020-04-23
Volume
25
Issue
16
ISSN
  • 1025-496X (ISSN-L)
  • 1560-7917
OpenAlex
W3017962953
Cited by
322
References
16
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), March 2020. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.16.2000421
The paper
Perera, R. A., Mok, C. K., Tsang, O. T., Lv, H., Ko, R. L., Wu, N. C., Yuan, M., Leung, W. S., Chan, J. M., Chik, T. S., Choi, C. Y., Leung, K., Chan, K. H., Chan, K. C., Li, K.-C., Wu, J. T., Wilson, I. A., Monto, A. S., Poon, L. L., & Peiris, M. (2020). Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), March 2020. Eurosurveillance. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.16.2000421

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.