
==== Front
Pol J Microbiol
Pol J Microbiol
pjm
pjm
Polish Journal of Microbiology
1733-1331
2544-4646
Sciendo

pjm-2024-019
10.33073/pjm-2024-019
38905276
Minireview
Potential Usefulness of IgA for the Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Comparison With IgM
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0550-1029
Wang Pei 1peiwwien@outlook.com

1 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Blood Transfusion, Jingmen Central Hospital, Jingmen, China
Corresponding author: P. Wang, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Blood Transfusion, Jingmen Central Hospital, Jingmen, China
20 6 2024
6 2024
73 2 123130
29 2 2024
22 4 2024
© 2024 Pei Wang, published by Sciendo
2024
Pei Wang, published by Sciendo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract

Serological testing can be a powerful complementary approach to achieve timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, along with nucleic acid detection. Immunoglobulin (Ig) A antibodies are less frequently utilized to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection than IgM and IgG antibodies, even though IgA antibodies play an important role in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. This review discusses the differences in kinetics and assay performance between IgA and IgM antibodies and the factors influencing antibody responses. It highlights the potential usefulness of analyzing IgA antibodies for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The early appearance of IgA and the high sensitivity of IgA-based immunoassays can aid in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019. However, because of cross-reactivity, it is important to recognize the only moderate specificity of the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies against spike antigens. Either the analysis of antibodies targeting the nucleocapsid antigen or a combination of antibodies against the nucleocapsid and spike antigens may strengthen the accuracy of serological evaluation.

Keywords

early detection
IgA isotype
kinetics of antibodies
SARS-CoV-2
serological test
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a significant threat to global health, leading to a devasting number of deaths worldwide (Zhang et al. 2022). Viral RNA can be analyzed from nasal and pharyngeal swabs, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and blood plasma using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (Huang et al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2020). Currently, confirmation of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection mainly depends on RNA testing.

The performance of RT-PCR in the real world is not always conclusive, with some suspected patients required to repeat testing multiple times before a confirmatory diagnosis can be made (Liu et al. 2020a). During the waiting period, the relevant treatment and quarantine management are delayed. Furthermore, RT-PCR requires expensive instruments and reagents, extensive sample processing, and trained personnel, limiting its widespread application (Esbin et al. 2020).

RNA detection has relatively low sensitivity for samples from hemodialysis patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only 53% of confirmed patients were initially diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection by positive RNA results, with the remaining 47% of patients later identified by serological testing rather than RT-PCR (Tang et al. 2020a).

A serological test aids diagnosis of false negative results from RT-PCR caused by a sampling time more than five days after symptom onset (Petherick 2020; Watson et al. 2020). Immunoassays detect antibody subtypes (IgA, IgM, or IgG) or composite antibodies (Pan-Ig or total antibodies). They can be used for either qualitative or quantitative measurements (Arkhipova-Jenkins et al. 2021). Sensitive and specific serological assays can be very useful for early detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2, IgM and IgA antibodies are produced earlier than IgG isotypes, and IgA antibodies can sometimes be detected earlier than IgM (Infantino et al. 2021). The IgA detected by immunoassay is considered a more reliable early serological marker than IgM (Pieri et al. 2020). This should drive the inclusion of IgA antibody determination in diagnostic kits and may be particularly useful for patients with atypical symptoms, asymptomatic patients, and acute settings with repeated negative RNA testing results (Infantino et al. 2021). However, IgA is less utilized in routine serological settings, despite being a potential early serological biomarker that correlates with infection severity and neutralization capacity (Seow et al. 2020).

Here, we comprehensively review the differences in kinetics and assay performance between IgA and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and explore the usefulness of IgA-based immunoassays for the early determination of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Embase) and pre-print servers (medRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched for the period from 1 January 2020 until 1 January 2024, with the following terms: kinetics of antibodies, SARS-CoV-2, serological test, early detection, IgA isotype, and antibody response. English-language original papers, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies were included. All potentially eligible papers, including pre-peer-review pre-prints, were exported to Endnote X 8.2 (Clarivate™, USA) and screened for relevace. The author included all retrieved studies as they satisfied quality criteria.

The potential usefulness of IgA and IgM for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection often results in an early IgM response, followed by subsequent class switching to IgG. Some studies have shown that IgA responses precede IgM responses, although the implications of this pattern are not yet understood (Ma et al. 2020; Verkerke et al. 2021).

Several studies have evaluated the earliest day of seroconversion. As reported by Yu et al. (2020), the first seroconversion days for IgA and IgM were 2 and 5 days after initial symptom onset, respectively. Among 183 samples, the positive detection rate of antibodies was 98.9% for IgA and 93.4% for IgM. This study showed an earlier IgA immune response than an IgM response.

To explore the seroconversion of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Ma et al. (2020) divided samples into six groups based on time points after symptom onset. The IgA detection kit they tested exhibited a higher positive rate (88.2%) than the IgM kit (76.4%) at 4–10 days post-symptom onset. The median seroconversion day was 4–6 days after symptom onset for IgA and IgM (Ma et al. 2020). This study provides valuable information about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing, especially about the utility of IgA antibodies for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Guo et al. (2020) observed that IgA and IgM antibodies were detectable at day 5 after symptom onset. At 1–7 days, the positive detection rates were 92.7% and 85.4% for IgA and IgM, respectively. Other studies analyzed the positive detection rates for IgA and IgM antibodies within 7 days to address whether IgA is suitable as an early detection marker for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infantino et al. (2021) evaluated the effect of IgA antibody analysis on the detection window between serological testing and RT-PCR assay. At 5–7 days, among eight patients seronegative for IgM antibodies, all tested positive for IgA antibodies (100%). Another study had similar findings when monitoring 48 patients for the first 7 days post-symptom onset (Sterlin et al. 2021). The positive detection rates for IgA and IgM anti-RBD antibodies were 31.3% and 14.6%, respectively, while the positive detection rates for IgA and IgM anti-N antibodies were 23.0% and 2.1%, respectively. A study by Zervou et al. (2021) enrolled 82 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed infection. Serum samples were collected within 7 days of symptom onset and tested for antibodies. IgA and IgM were positive in 60.0% and 53.3% of samples, respectively (Zervou et al. 2021). These findings suggest that IgA antibodies bridge the chronological gap between effective serological and RT-PCR testing (Fig. 1). The positive detection rates of IgA and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens at an early stage are shown in Table I.

Fig. 1. Time course of COVID-19 infection and test positivity, the data based on recently published papers (Guo et al. 2020; Infantino et al. 2021).

Table I Positive detection rate for IgA and IgM at an early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IgA	IgM	Time point	Target antigen	Principles	References	
IgA	IgM	IgA	IgM	
100%	0%	5–7 days	S1	N + S	ELISA	CLIA	Infantino et al. 2021	
92.7%	85.4%	1–7 days	N	N	ELISA	ELISA	Guo et al. 2020	
31.3%	14.6%	1–7 days	RBD	RBD	PRI	PRI	Sterlin et al. 2021	
23.0%	2.1%	1–7 days	N	N	PRI	PRI	Sterlin et al. 2021	
60.0%	53.3%	1–7 days	N	N	ELISA	ELISA	Zervou et al. 2021	
28.0%	10%	1–7 days	N/S	N/S	CMIA	CMIA	Pisanic et al. 2021	
50.0%*	0%*	1–7 days	N/S	N/S	CMIA	CMIA	Pisanic et al. 2021	
1 S1 – spike protein S1 subunit, S – spike protein, N – nucleocapsid protein, RBD – receptor-binding domain, ELISA – enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, CLIA – chemiluminescence immunoassay, PRI – photonic ring immunoassay, CMIA – chemiluminescent magnetic microparticle immunoassay

1 * – saliva sample

IgA prevalence ranged from 75% to 89% (median, 83%) after symptom onset or RT-PCR positivity (Arkhipova-Jenkins et al. 2021). Serological testing has been reported to be significant and applicable for diagnosis, population surveillance, and vaccine response (Udugama et al. 2020). However, the serological immunoassay is not recommended for population surveillance in low prevalence settings due to possible more false-positive results (Peeling et al. 2020). IgA antibodies peaked within one month of SARS-CoV-2 infection and then declined but remained detectable until at least 100 days (Gudbjartsson et al. 2020). Regarding the IgA prevalence and kinetics, IgA response to SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs early and is potent for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in both serum and saliva specimens (Casian et al. 2021).

Factors influencing the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Target antigen

Among the four structural proteins (spike: S, envelop: E, membrane: M, and nucleocapsid: N) of SARS-CoV-2, the S and N proteins are the main immunogens. The S protein is a larger glyco-protein consisting of two subunits (S1 and S2) (Walls et al. 2020). The S1 subunit contains a receptor-binding domain (RBD) that can bind the human angiotensinconverting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. The S1 protein tends to be the target of medical treatments and vaccines (Zhang et al. 2021). The S2 subunit is more conserved and contains the fusion domains and the transmembrane region. The S1 subunit is more specific than the S protein as an antigen. The N protein is abundantly expressed and essential for viral particle assembly. It is highly immunogenic and induces a high level of immune response at an early stage (Li and Li 2021). Assays to detect antibodies against the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 are more sensitive than those that detect the S protein. In addition, antibodies against the N protein are detected earlier during infection (Burbelo et al. 2020). Many serological immunoassays have been developed to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection based on recognition of the S and/or N protein (Liu et al. 2020b; Van Elslande et al. 2020). In addition, most vaccine candidates target the S protein (Arashkia et al. 2021). Determination of the response to the N protein can help discriminate between immune responses related to vaccination (responding to S only) and natural SARS-CoV-2 infection (responding to both S and N). Assays such as Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab (Bio-Rad, USA) and Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) may selectively detect viral infection responses but not vaccination (Shi and Ren 2021).

Illness severity

Generally, antibody responses are stronger in critically ill patients (Qu et al. 2020), and asymptomatic individuals have weaker immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection (Long et al. 2020). A cohort study evaluated antibody levels in 232 recovered and 32 deceased patients (Hou et al. 2020). The data showed the IgG levels in the two groups were comparable, whereas the IgM levels were slightly higher in the deceased group than in the recovered group. Severe and critical cases had higher IgM levels than mild cases. Nevertheless, the IgG levels in critical cases were lower than in the mild and severe groups. Ma et al. (2020) assigned 87 patients into three groups according to illness severity. They found that serum IgM and IgG levels in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were significantly higher than in mild cases. Likewise, IgA levels in the severe group were considerably higher than in the mild and moderate groups.

Viral load

Humoral and cellular responses are vital for viral clearance, generating specific antibodies that neutralize viral entry. The intensity of viral replication may affect the magnitude of the host immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A prospective study was performed by Masiá et al. (2021) to investigate the association between viral load and antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of 132 patients, 33 (25%) patients showed no seroconversion. Patients who did not seroconvert had a lower viral load and a shorter time to viral clearance. Assessing nasopharyngeal viral load can enhance our understanding of host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Xu et al. (2023) conducted a phase 3 COVID-19 prevention trial. The mean (standard deviation) maximum viral load in those who sero-converted by day 32 was 7.23 (1.68) log10 copies/ml, compared with 4.8 (2.2) log10 copies/ml in those who remained seronegative (Xu et al. 2023). This may suggest that low-viral-load SARS-CoV-2 infection fails to trigger protective immunity. Viral load, rather than the duration of infection or the presence of symptomatic infection, maybe the significant driver of seroconversion.

Gender and age

Gender and age are two important factors related to the risk for and outcome of COVID-19 (Peckham et al. 2020). After SARS-CoV-2 infection, the immune system generates different levels of antibodies in women and men. Thus, men’s high risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes may be caused by their stronger immune responses (Korte et al. 2021). Sadiq et al. (2022) found that men and young individuals develop more robust humoral immunity than women and elderly individuals.

Zhai et al. (2022) discussed the association between serum antibody concentration and age. They found that participants aged 18–29 had significantly lower antibodies against N, S1, and RBD proteins than older participants (Zhai et al. 2022). Male sex, advancing age, and hospitalization for severe COVID-19 were associated with IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 (Klein et al. 2020). Further investigation is needed to validate whether common or divergent factors drive these associations.

Comparison of performance of IgA and IgM immunoassays

Several researchers have explored the performance of IgA and IgM immunoassays for determining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Montesinos et al. (2020) assessed the performance of five immunoassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for IgA demonstrated 83.6%, 86.1%, 91.5%, and 74.7% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), respectively. In contrast, whereas chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for IgM achieved 58.7%, 100%, 100%, and 58.1% sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, respectively. Strength of that study is that it verifies the better sensitivity of IgA than IgM for detecting SARS-CoV-2 at an early stage. Another study evaluated the performance of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays on 171 serum samples (Herroelen et al. 2020). IgA ELISA showed 79.3%, 91.1%, 96.4%, and 59.3% overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, respectively, whereas the gold-standard lateral flow assay (LFA) for IgM showed 42.4%, 100%, 100%, and 36.4% overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, respectively. Unlike most IgM assays, the IgA assays displayed good sensitivity and acceptable specificity.

Tré-Hardy et al. (2021) sought to evaluate the performance of ELISAs for IgA, IgM, and total antibodies (IgA, IgM, and IgG). The sensitivity was 89.7%, 48.7%, and 91.2% for IgA, IgM, and total antibodies, respectively. The specificity was 98.7%, 98.7%, and 94.9% for IgA, IgM, and total antibodies, respectively (Tré-Hardy et al. 2021). This study suggests that including IgA may enhance serological sensitivity at an early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Nicol et al. (2020) compared ELISA’s overall sensitivity and specificity for IgA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgM. The IgA ELISA showed 86.7% sensitivity and 82.7% specificity, whereas the LFIA IgM achieved 81.8% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity. Few false positive results were observed for either IgA ELISA or IgM LFIA. False positive results suggest that interference factors should be taken into account for serological testing assays (Wang et al. 2020).

To compare the performance of different antibody isotypes for the diagnosis of acute COVID-19, an ELISA-based screening assay was developed to detect IgG, IgA, or IgM specific for the RBD of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for IgA was 0.97, and that for IgM was 0.95. The AUC results show that the analysis of IgA antibodies is slightly better for acute COVID-19 diagnosis than IgM antibodies (Verkerke et al. 2021). Therefore, compared to IgM, IgA antibodies seem to be suitable for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Significance of IgA in COVID-19 breakthrough infection

Longitudinal monitoring of humoral immunity and identification of vaccine response predictors are essential for optimizing vaccine management (Lippi et al. 2021). IgA antibodies play a crucial role since IgA values in serum closely reflect the development of humoral immunity. Anis et al. (2023) evaluated the importance of IgA antibodies in breakthrough infection individuals; they found a higher positivity rate for IgA to S1 (70% vs. 28% in healthy individuals), and IgA to NP was not found in the control group. In the breakthrough group, the positivity rate of IgA to NP decreased significantly, while IgA to S1 increased over time at 4–8 weeks. IgA to S1, and NP were both negative in 13 patients at initial testing. The findings of this study imply that serum IgA antibodies have a role in breakthrough infection and prevention of severe disease.

Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 can result in failure to detect antibodies with kits designed to recognize epitopes from earlier variants. Changes have primarily been observed in the S protein. Targeting the N protein may be beneficial as it may remain relatively unaffected in different variants compared with the S protein (Sharma et al. 2023). IgA to N protein is effective in detecting COVID-19 breakthrough infection.

The usefulness of salivary IgA for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2

Saliva is a crucial component of mucosal immunity; the secretory IgA (SIgA) in saliva attacks the infectious virus in the respiratory entrance, thereby preventing the virus from attaching to epithelial cells. Pisanic et al. (2021) postulated saliva could act as a noninvasive alternative to serological testing for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore they developed a multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay to analyze IgA, IgM and IgG in serum and saliva.

At the time point 1–7 days after symptom onset, the detection sensitivity was 50% for IgA and 0% for IgM in saliva, while it was 28% for IgA and 10% for IgM in serum. Obviously, this immunoassay displayed a relatively higher sensitivity for salivary IgA detection at an early stage.

Newly developed IgA biomarkers, such as dimeric IgA, can be detected in LFA IgA assays with 100% sensitivity and 98.2% specificity, with an estimated shorter half-life of 6.3 days. The advantages of dimeric IgA render it a superior biomarker for recent SARS-CoV-2 infection in point-of-care testing (POCT) (Drummer et al. 2021). A saliva IgA assay could be necessary for the evaluation of levels of protective immunity or the effects of vaccination when available in the future (Wang 2021).

Issue of cross-reactivity of IgA with other associated coronaviruses

The principles that seroconversion of IgA antibodies precede IgM remain unclear. Recently, a study revealed that S protein-based epitopes for detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies cross-react with antibodies against other pathogens. Mapping revealed that 40 IgA epitopes were detected on the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Evaluation of the specificity of each epitope by microarray demonstrated that at least 23 epitopes were cross-reactive with Dengue fever virus and other pathogens. Twenty-four epitopes showed cross-reactivity with other associated coronaviruses. Of 6 RBD-IgA epitopes, only SC/18 (a peptide with residues 490–504 of S1) of Omicron variants displayed good specificity (De-Simone et al. 2023). This suggests that utilization of the whole S protein or the S1/S2/RBD segment may give false positive results. Notably, in two studies with identical patient groups, detection time points, and detection assays, anti-S(RBD) antibodies had a higher positive detection rate than anti-NCP antibodies (31.3% vs. 23.0%) (Sterlin et al. 2021) and (93.8% vs. 71.9%) (Cacaci et al. 2021). The high positive detection rate of anti-S(RBD) IgA antibodies at an early stage of symptom onset does not rule out the possibility of cross-reactivity with S(RBD)-based assays because anti-NCP antibodies are expected to be produced earlier than those against S1 and S2 (Burbelo et al. 2020). Jääskeläinen et al. (2020) evaluated an S1-based IgA ELISA and found only 73% specificity. A serum sample from one patient with human coronavirus OC43 infection showed crossreactivity in the assay (Jääskeläinen et al. 2020).

IgA seems to be an ideal early serological biomarker that correlates with infection severity and neutralization capacity. The role of IgA in controlling SARS-CoV-2 is becoming increasingly apparent. Many serological immunoassays have been developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 specific IgA with target antigens derived from the S and/or N protein. It is important to recognize the pitfalls of the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies against S antigens. Either using assays for antibodies targeting the N antigen, a combination of the N and S antigens, or a specific non-cross-reactive IgA peptide epitope may strengthen the accuracy of serological assays (Jalkanen et al. 2021). Evaluation of a serological assay should include specificity analyses against related viruses and possible interfering substances (Lipsitch et al. 2020; Lv et al. 2020). If the issue of specificity is addressed with the appropriate antigen, the early detection capacity and high accuracy of IgA antibody determination may greatly aid COVID-19 diagnosis.

Combination analysis of IgA antibodies with IgM/IgG and RT-PCR for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The availability of tests with good performance will lead to a more accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The analysis of IgA antibodies with IgM/IgG antibodies significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 (Cervia et al. 2021). Zhao et al. (2020) collected serial plasma samples from 173 patients and determined total antibody, IgM, and IgG levels against SARS-CoV-2, and performed the virus detection with RT-PCR at different time points. At 1–7 days postsymptom onset, total antibodies, IgM, and IgG showed 38.3%, 28.7%, and 19.1% sensitivity, respectively. Total antibodies are expected to demonstrate higher sensitivity than IgM or IgG alone because total antibodies include an analysis of IgA, IgM, and IgG rather than an individual isotype (Tang et al. 2020b). Interestingly, the sensitivity of RT-PCR at 1–7 days post-symptom onset was 66.7%; combining RT-PCR with total antibody analysis improved the diagnostic sensitivity from 66.7% to 78.7%. To our knowledge, serological assays are generally not relied on for diagnosing acute viral respiratory tract infections, as it takes time for the body to produce detectable levels of antibodies (Theel et al. 2020).

One lesson from the SARS-CoV was that IgM and IgA antibody analysis did not provide earlier evidence of infection than IgG antibody testing (Hsueh et al. 2004). To our knowledge, serological assays are generally not relied on for diagnosing acute viral respiratory tract infections, as it takes time for the body to produce detectable levels of antibodies. At the time of publication, total antibody testing has been widely developed, and includes assessment of IgA with IgM and IgG. Seroconversion of total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was observed to occur as early as the day of symptom onset (Tariq et al. 2021). One study using the Roche Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 total antibody and Abbott Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Laboratories, USA) assays reached a similar conclusion (Harley and Gunsolus 2020). Of 13 patients 3–7 days after symptom onset, eight (61.54%), 11 (84.62%), and seven (53.85%) were reactive to the Abbott IgG, Roche total antibody, and Abbott IgM assays, respectively. These results indicate the robust early detection capacity of total antibodies for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Therefore, integration of IgA with IgM and IgG (Nuccetelli et al. 2020) or with RT-PCR could be useful for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Li et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2020).

Conclusions

A limitation of this review is the small number of studies. Some immunoassays have not yet been validated and there is variability in the accuracy of the tests employed. Data from previous studies indicated that IgA assays have good sensitivity and acceptable specificity compared with IgM assays. IgA antibodies appear to precede IgM in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Analyses of the discrepancies in the performances of various serological testing kits indicate that they are related to the inherent characteristics of a serological assay, the target antigen used, sampling time, and the populations enrolled, which suggests that accurate diagnosis depends on the tests used. High sensitivity (> 95%) is critical for diagnosing individual patients. High specificity (> 98%) is preferred for seroprevalence studies. To date, the performance of IgA immunoassays could be more satisfactory. Developing new recombinant antigens and using ultrasensitive quantum dot materials, although this process still has a long way to go, can improve the performance of IgA immunoassays. The development of an LFIA IgA assay is expected to prompt POCT kits for the early screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on its accessibility, simple procedures, and lower detection time.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not report any financial or personal connections with other persons or organizations, which might negatively affect the contents of this publication and/or claim authorship rights to this publication.
==== Refs
Literature

Anis S Khan MA Fatima A Kanani F Aijaz J Hussain A Sarfaraz S . Significance of Anti-COVID-IgA antibody response in COVID-19 breakthrough infection in vaccinated patients – a single-centered study from Pakistan . Immunol Res . 2023 NaN ; 71 ( 6 ): 941 – 949 . 10.1007/s12026-023-09407-y 37436673
Arashkia A Jalilvand S Mohajel N Afchangi A Azadmanesh K Salehi-Vaziri M Fazlalipour M Pouriayevali MH Jalali T MousaviNasab SD et al. ; SARS CoV-2 Rapid Response Team of Pasteur Institute of Iran (PII). Severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 spike (S) protein based vaccine candidates: State of the art and future prospects . Rev Med Virol . 2021 NaN ; 31 ( 3 ): e2183 . 10.1002/rmv.2183 33594794
Arkhipova-Jenkins I Helfand M Armstrong C Gean E Anderson J Paynter RA Mackey K . Antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and implications for immunity: A rapid living review . Ann Intern Med . 2021 NaN ; 174 ( 6 ): 811 – 821 . 10.7326/M20-7547 33721517
Burbelo PD Riedo FX Morishima C Rawlings S Smith D Das S Strich JR Chertow DS Davey RT Cohen JI . Sensitivity in detection of antibodies to nucleocapsid and spike proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 . J Infect Dis . 2020 NaN ; 222 ( 2 ): 206 – 213 . 10.1093/infdis/jiaa273 32427334
Cacaci M Menchinelli G Ricci R DeMaio F Mariotti M Torelli R Morandotti GA Bugli F Sanguinetti M Posteraro B . Re-evaluating positive serum samples for SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG antibodies using an in-house serological assay . Clin Microbiol Infect . 2021 NaN ; 27 ( 5 ): 808 – 810 . 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.014 33352302
Casian JG Angel AN Lopez R Bagos C MacMullan MA Bui ML Chellamathu P Das S Turner F Slepnev V et al. Saliva-based ELISAs for effective SARS-CoV-2 antibody monitoring in vaccinated individuals . Front Immunol . 2021 NaN ; 12 : 701411 . 10.3389/fimmu.2021.701411 34539632
Cervia C Nilsson J Zurbuchen Y Valaperti A Schreiner J Wolfensberger A Raeber ME Adamo S Weigang S Emmenegger M et al. Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19 . J Allergy Clin Immunol . 2021 NaN ; 147 ( 2 ): 545 – 557 . e9 . 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.040 33221383
De-Simone SG Napoleão-Pêgo P Lechuga GC Carvalho JPRS Monteiro ME Morel CM Provance DW Jr . Mapping IgA epitope and cross-reactivity between severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 and DENV . Vaccines (Basel) . 2023 NaN ; 11 ( 12 ): 1749 . 10.3390/vaccines11121749 38140154
Drummer HE Van H Klock E Zheng S Wei Z Boo I Center RJ Li F Bhat P Ffrench R et al. Dimeric IgA is a specific biomarker of recent SARS-CoV-2 infection . medRxiv [Preprint] . 2021 NaN 1 : 2021 . 06.28.21259671. 10.1101/2021.06.28.21259671
Esbin MN Whitney ON Chong S Maurer A Darzacq X Tjian R . Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: A rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection . RNA . 2020 NaN ; 26 ( 7 ): 771 – 783 . 10.1261/rna.076232.120 32358057
Gudbjartsson DF Norddahl GL Melsted P Gunnarsdot-tir K Holm H Eythorsson E Arnthorsson AO Helgason D Bjarnadottir K Ingvarsson RF et al. Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland . N Engl J Med . 2020 NaN ; 383 ( 18 ): 1724 – 1734 . 10.1056/NEJMoa2026116 32871063
Guo L Ren L Yang S Xiao M Chang D Yang F DelaCruz CS Wang Y Wu C Xiao Y et al. Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) . Clin Infect Dis . 2020 NaN ; 71 ( 15 ): 778 – 785 . 10.1093/cid/ciaa310 32198501
Harley K Gunsolus IL . Comparison of the clinical performances of the Abbott Alinity IgG, Abbott Architect IgM, and Roche Elec-sys Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays . J Clin Microbiol . 2020 NaN ; 59 ( 1 2024019 ): 10.1128/jcm.02104-20 . 10.1128/jcm.02104-20
Herroelen PH Martens GA DeSmet D Swaerts K Decavele AS . Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2: Comparative clinical performance of seven commercial serology tests . Am J Clin Pathol . 2020 NaN ; 154 ( 5 ): 610 – 619 . 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa140 32808976
Hou H Wang T Zhang B Luo Y Mao L Wang F Wu S Sun Z . Detection of IgM and IgG antibodies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 . Clin Transl Immunology . 2020 NaN ; 9 ( 5 ): e01136 . 10.1002/cti2.1136 32382418
Hsueh PR Huang LM Chen PJ Kao CL Yang PC . Chronological evolution of IgM, IgA, IgG and neutralisation antibodies after infection with SARS-associated coronavirus . Clin Microbiol Infect . 2004 NaN ; 10 ( 12 ): 1062 – 1066 . 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01009.x 15606632
Huang C Wang Y Li X Ren L Zhao J Hu Y Zhang L Fan G Xu J Gu X et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China . Lancet . 2020 NaN ; 395 ( 10223 ): 497 – 506 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 31986264
Infantino M Manfredi M Grossi V Lari B Fabbri S Benucci M Fortini A Damiani A Mobilia EM Panciroli M et al. Closing the serological gap in the diagnostic testing for COVID-19: The value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies . J Med Virol . 2021 NaN ; 93 ( 3 ): 1436 – 1442 . 10.1002/jmv.26422 32790181
Jääskeläinen AJ Kekäläinen E Kallio-Kokko H Mannonen L Kortela E Vapalahti O Kurkela S Lappalainen M . Evaluation of commercial and automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs using coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient samples . Euro Surveill . 2020 NaN ; 25 ( 18 ): 2000603 . 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.18.2000603 32400364
Jalkanen P Pasternack A Maljanen S Melén K Kolehmainen P Huttunen M Lundberg R Tripathi L Khan H Ritvos MA et al. A Combination of N and S antigens with IgA and IgG measurement strengthens the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 serodiagnostics . J Infect Dis . 2021 NaN ; 224 ( 2 ): 218 – 228 . 10.1093/infdis/jiab222 33905505
Klein SL Pekosz A Park HS Ursin RL Shapiro JR Benner SE Littlefield K Kumar S Naik HM Betenbaugh MJ et al. Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population . J Clin Invest . 2020 NaN ; 130 ( 11 ): 6141 – 6150 . 10.1172/JCI142004 32764200
Korte W Buljan M Rösslein M Wick P Golubov V Jentsch J Reut M Peier K Nohynek B Fischer A et al. SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibody response is gender dependent; and IgG antibodies rapidly decline early on . J Infect . 2021 NaN ; 82 ( 1 ): e11 – e14 . 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.08.032
Li D Li J . Immunologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection from the antigen perspective . J Clin Microbiol . 2021 NaN ; 59 ( 5 2024019 ): 10.1128/jcm. 02160-20. 10.1128/jcm.02160-20
Li N Wang P Wang X Geng C Chen J Gong Y . Molecular diagnosis of COVID-19: Current situation and trend in China (Review) . Exp Ther Med . 2020 NaN ; 20 ( 5 ): 13 . 10.3892/etm.2020.9142 32934678
Lipsitch M Grad YH Sette A Crotty S . Cross-reactive memory T cells and herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 . Nat Rev Immunol . 2020 NaN ; 20 ( 11 ): 709 – 713 . 10.1038/s41577-020-00460-4 33024281
Liu R Han H Liu F Lv Z Wu K Liu Y Feng Y Zhu C . Positive rate of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 4880 cases from one hospital in Wuhan, China, from Jan to Feb 2020 . Clin Chim Acta . 2020a NaN ; 505 : 172 – 175 . 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.009 32156607
Liu W Liu L Kou G Zheng Y Ding Y Ni W Wang Q Tan L Wu W Tang S et al. Evaluation of nucleocapsid and spike proteinbased enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 . J Clin Microbiol . 2020b NaN ; 58 ( 6 2024019 ): 10.1128/ jcm.00461-20. 10.1128/jcm.00461-20
Long QX Tang XJ Shi QL Li Q Deng HJ Yuan J Hu JL Xu W Zhang Y Lv FJ et al. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections . Nat Med . 2020 NaN ; 26 ( 8 ): 1200 – 1204 . 10.1038/s41591-020-0965-6 32555424
Lv H Wu NC Tsang OT Yuan M Perera RAPM Leung WS So RTY Chan JMC Yip GK Chik TSH et al. Cross-reactive antibody response between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infections . Cell Rep . 2020 NaN ; 31 ( 9 ): 107725 . 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107725
Ma H Zeng W He H Zhao D Jiang D Zhou P Cheng L Li Y Ma X Jin T . Serum IgA, IgM, and IgG responses in COVID-19 . Cell Mol Immunol . 2020 NaN ; 17 ( 7 ): 773 – 775 . 10.1038/s41423-020-0474-z 32467617
Masiá M Telenti G Fernández M García JA Agulló V Padilla S García-Abellán J Guillén L Mascarell P Asenjo JC et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and viral clearance in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Viral load predicts antibody response . Open Forum Infect Dis . 2021 NaN 5 ; 8 ( 2 ): ofab005 . 10.1093/ofid/ofab005 33614814
Montesinos I Gruson D Kabamba B Dahma H Van den Wijn-gaert S Reza S Carbone V Vandenberg O Gulbis B Wolff F et al. Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies . J Clin Virol . 2020 NaN ; 128 : 104413 . 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104413 32403010
Nicol T Lefeuvre C Serri O Pivert A Joubaud F Dubée V Kouatchet A Ducancelle A Lunel-Fabiani F Le Guillou-Guillemette H . Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech) . J Clin Virol . 2020 NaN ; 129 : 104511 . 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104511 32593133
Nuccetelli M Pieri M Gisone F Bernardini S . Combined anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgG, and IgM detection as a better strategy to prevent second infection spreading waves . Immunol Invest . 2022 NaN ; 51 ( 2 ): 233 – 245 . 10.1080/08820139.2020.1823407 32945214
Peckham H deGruijter NM Raine C Radziszewska A Ciurtin C Wedderburn LR Rosser EC Webb K Deakin CT . Male sex identified by global COVID-19 meta-analysis as a risk factor for death and ITU admission . Nat Commun . 2020 NaN ; 11 ( 1 ): 6317 . 10.1038/s41467-020-19741-6 33298944
Peeling RW Wedderburn CJ Garcia PJ Boeras D Fongwen N Nkengasong J Sall A Tanuri A Heymann DL . Serology testing in the COVID-19 pandemic response . Lancet Infect Dis . 2020 NaN ; 20 ( 9 ): e245 – e249 . 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30517-X 32687805
Petherick A . Developing antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 . Lancet . 2020 NaN ; 395 ( 10230 ): 1101 – 1102 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30788-1 32247384
Pieri M Ciotti M Carlozzi N Frassanito ML Meloni A Cistera A Turchetti G Niscola S Labate G Calugi G et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection serology validation of different methods: Usefulness of IgA in the early phase of infection . Clin Chim Acta . 2020 NaN ; 511 : 28 – 32 . 10.1016/j.cca.2020.09.033 33002475
Pisanic N Randad PR Kruczynski K Manabe YC Thomas DL Pekosz A Klein SL Betenbaugh MJ Clarke WA Laeyendecker O et al. COVID-19 serology at population scale: SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in saliva . J Clin Microbiol . 2020 NaN ; 59 ( 1 2024019 ): 10.1128/jcm.02204-20 . 10.1128/jcm.02204-20
Qu J Wu C Li X Zhang G Jiang Z Li X Zhu Q Liu L . Profile of immunoglobulin G and IgM antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) . Clin Infect Dis . 2020 NaN ; 71 ( 16 ): 2255 – 2258 . 10.1093/cid/ciaa489 32337590
Sadiq S Khan M Sadiq T Orakzai S Dawood MM Haq NU Riaz N . Impact of age, gender, post infection and post vaccination status on antibody response in COVID 19 patients . J Pak Med Assoc . 2022 NaN ; 72 ( 9 ): 1805 – 1809 . 10.47391/jpma.5309 36280980
Seow J Graham C Merrick B Acors S Pickering S Steel KJA Hemmings O O’Byrne A Kouphou N Galao RP et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans . Nat Microbiol . 2020 NaN ; 5 ( 12 ): 1598 – 1607 . 10.1038/s41564-020-00813-8 33106674
Sharma S Shrivastava S Kausley SB Rai B Pandit AB . Coronavirus: A comparative analysis of detection technologies in the wake of emerging variants . Infection . 2023 NaN ; 51 ( 1 ): 1 – 19 . 10.1007/s15010-022-01819-6 35471631
Shi AC Ren P . SARS-CoV-2 serology testing: Progress and challenges . J Immunol Methods . 2021 NaN ; 494 : 113060 . 10.1016/j.jim.2021.113060 33915155
Sterlin D Mathian A Miyara M Mohr A Anna F Claёr L Quentric P Fadlallah J Devilliers H Ghillani P et al. IgA dominates the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 . Sci Transl Med . 2021 NaN ; 13 ( 577 ): eabd2223 . 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd2223 33288662
Tang H Tian JB Dong JW Tang XT Yan ZY Zhao YY Xiong F Sun X Song CX Xiang CG et al. Serologic detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in hemodialysis centers: A multicenter retrospective study in Wuhan, China . Am J Kidney Dis . 2020a NaN ; 76 ( 4 ): 490 – 499 . e1 . 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.06.008 32628990
Tang MS Hock KG Logsdon NM Hayes JE Gronowski AM Anderson NW Farnsworth CW . Clinical performance of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay . Clin Chem . 2020b NaN ; 66 ( 8 ): 1107 – 1109 . 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa132 32484860
Tariq M Hur J Seo JW Kim DY Yun NR Lee YM Bang MS Hwang SY Kim CM Lee JH et al. Usefulness of ELISA using total antibody against plant-expressed recombinant nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 . Microbiol Spectr . 2021 NaN ; 9 ( 3 ): e0067221 . 10.1128/spectrum.00672-21 34817278
Theel ES Slev P Wheeler S Couturier MR Wong SJ Kadkhoda K . The role of antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2: Is there one? J Clin Microbiol . 2020 NaN ; 58 ( 8 2024019 ):10.1128/jcm.00797-20. 10.1128/jcm.00797-20
Tré-Hardy M Wilmet A Beukinga I Favresse J Dogné JM, Douxfils J Blairon L . Analytical and clinical validation of an ELISA for specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies . J Med Virol . 2021 NaN ; 93 ( 2 ): 803 – 811 . 10.1002/jmv.26303 32667733
Udugama B Kadhiresan P Kozlowski HN Malekjahani A Osborne M Li VYC Chen H Mubareka S Gubbay JB Chan WCW . Diagnosing COVID-19: The disease and tools for detection . ACS Nano . 2020 NaN ; 14 ( 4 ): 3822 – 3835 . 10.1021/acsnano.0c02624 32223179
VanElslande J Decru B Jonckheere S VanWijngaerden E Houben E Vandecandelaere P Indevuyst C Depypere M Desmet S André E et al. Antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein evaluated by four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs . Clin Microbiol Infect . 2020 NaN ; 26 ( 11 ): 1557.e1 – 1557 . e7 . 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.038
Verkerke H Horwath M Saeedi B Boyer D Allen JW Owens J Arthur CM Nakahara H Rha J Patel K et al. Comparison of antibody class-specific SARS-CoV-2 serologies for the diagnosis of acute COVID-19 . J Clin Microbiol . 2021 NaN ; 59 ( 4 2024019 ): 10.1128/jcm.02026-20 . 10.1128/jcm.02026-20
Walls AC Park YJ Tortorici MA Wall A McGuire AT Veesler D . Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein . Cell . 2020 NaN ; 181 ( 2 ): 281 – 292 . e6 . 10.1016/j.celL2020.02.058 32155444
Wang P . Significance of IgA antibody testing for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 . J Med Virol . 2021 NaN ; 93 ( 4 ): 1888 – 1889 . 10.1002/jmv.26703 33289143
Wang Q Du Q Guo B Mu D Lu X Ma Q Guo Y Fang L Zhang B Zhang G et al. A method to prevent SARS-CoV-2 IgM false positives in gold immunochromatography and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays . J Clin Microbiol . 2020 NaN ; 58 ( 6 2024019 ): 10.1128/jcm.00375-20 . 10.1128/jcm.00375-20
Watson J Richter A Deeks J . Testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies . BMJ . 2020 NaN ; 370 : m3325 . 10.1136/bmj.m3325 32900692
Xu M O’Brien MP Hooper AT Forleo-Neto E Isa F Hou P Chan KC Cohen MS Marovich MA Hamilton JD et al. Nasopharyngeal viral load is the major driver of incident antibody immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection . Open Forum Infect Dis . 2023 NaN ; 10 ( 12 ): ofad598 . 10.1093/ofid/ofad598 38111750
Yu HQ Sun BQ Fang ZF Zhao JC Liu XY Li YM Sun XZ Liang HF Zhong B Huang ZF et al. Distinct features of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA response in COVID-19 patients . Eur Respir J . 2020 NaN ; 56 ( 2 ): 2001526 . 10.1183/13993003.01526-2020 32398307
Zervou FN Louie P Stachel A Zacharioudakis IM Ortiz-Mendez Y Thomas K Aguero-Rosenfeld ME . SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: IgA correlates with severity of disease in early COVID-19 infection . J Med Virol . 2021 NaN ; 93 ( 9 ): 5409 – 5415 . 10.1002/jmv.27058 33932299
Zhai B Clarke K Bauer DL MoehlingGeffel KK Kupul S Schratz LJ Nowalk MP McElroy AK McLachlan JB Zimmerman RK et al. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response Is Associated with Age and Body Mass Index in Convalescent Outpatients . J Immunol . 2022 NaN ; 208 ( 7 ): 1711 – 1718 . 10.4049/jimmunol.2101156 35321882
Zhang J Xiao T Cai Y Chen B . Structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein . Curr Opin Virol . 2021 NaN ; 50 : 173 – 182 . 10.1016/j.coviro.2021.08.010 34534731
Zhang S Wang L Cheng G . The battle between host and SARS-CoV-2: Innate immunity and viral evasion strategies . Mol Ther . 2022 NaN ; 30 ( 5 ): 1869 – 1884 . 10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.02.014 35176485
Zhao J Yuan Q Wang H Liu W Liao X Su Y Wang X Yuan J Li T Li J et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 . Clin Infect Dis . 2020 NaN ; 71 ( 16 ): 2027 – 2034 . 10.1093/cid/ciaa344 32221519
Zhou P Yang XL Wang XG Hu B Zhang L Zhang W Si HR Zhu Y Li B Huang CL et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin . Nature . 2020 NaN ; 579 ( 7798 ): 270 – 273 . 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 32015507
