# The Luciferase Immunoprecipitation System (LIPS) Targeting the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Is More Accurate than Nucleoprotein-Based LIPS and ELISAs for Mink Serology

## TL;DR

This study compares different tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in mink and finds that the LIPS-S test is more accurate than nucleoprotein-based tests.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that spike protein-based LIPS-S is more reliable than nucleoprotein-based assays for mink serology.

## Key findings

- LIPS-S showed excellent agreement with the reference PRNT test.
- N-based methods had higher false-negative rates, especially later in infection.
- LIPS-S detected more true-positive SARS-CoV-2 samples than N-based assays.

## Abstract

Since anthropo-zoonotic outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported in mink farms, it is important to monitor the seroprevalence within this population. To investigate the accuracy of nucleo (N) or spike (S) protein-based assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in animal serum, we compared four assays, two commercial N-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) validated for animal sera and two luciferase immunoprecipitation systems (LIPS-N and LIPS-S), to the reference standard plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT). Samples included in this study were derived from a naturally infected mink population. For the first time in this study, serum samples of mink were collected over a 307-day period, at different time points, thus providing an overview of performances of four different rapid serological tests over time. The assays were compared by performing a correlation analysis using R2, Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient, and Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa for analysis of agreement to PRNT, and an UpSet chart was created to visualize the number of shared positive samples between assays. Cohen's kappa test on categorical data showed an excellent agreement between PRNT and LIPS-S, while agreements between PRNT and N-based methods decreased from fair for LIPS-N to poor agreements for the ELISA kits. In addition, LIPS-S revealed the highest number of true-positive SARS-CoV-2 samples compared to N-based methods. Despite an excellent agreement between LIPS-S and PRNT, a weak correlation was detectable between PRNT titres and relative light units. This study shows that the LIPS-S assay can be used for serological surveillance within a naturally exposed mink population, while N-based serological assays are less accurate providing a higher number of false-negative results, especially at a later stage of infection, thus indicating that N antibodies are less persistent in naturally exposed mink. Our findings provide crucial information for veterinarians and competent authorities involved in surveillance and outbreak investigation in wild and farmed minks.