Dataset Information

International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: the NeutNet report II.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neutralizing antibodies provide markers for vaccine-induced protective immunity in many viral infections. By analogy, HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies induced by immunization may well predict vaccine effectiveness. Assessment of neutralizing antibodies is therefore of primary importance, but is hampered by the fact that we do not know which assay(s) can provide measures of protective immunity. An international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 different laboratories previously compared different assays using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and soluble CD4 (Phase I study).

Methods

In the present study (Phase II), polyclonal reagents were evaluated by 13 laboratories. Each laboratory evaluated nine plasmas against an 8 virus panel representing different genetic subtypes and phenotypes. TriMab, a mixture of three mAbs, was used as a positive control allowing comparison of the results with Phase I in a total of nine different assays. The assays used either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (Virus Infectivity Assays, VIA), or Env (gp160)-pseudotyped viruses (pseudoviruses, PSV) produced in HEK293T cells from molecular clones or from uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically engineered cell lines in either single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs including extra- or intra-cellular p24 antigen detection, luciferase, beta-galactosidase or green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene expression.

Findings

Using TriMab, results of Phase I and Phase II were generally in agreement for six of the eight viruses tested and confirmed that the PSV assay is more sensitive than PBMC (p = 0.014). Comparisons with the polyclonal reagents showed that sensitivities were dependent on both virus and plasma.

Conclusions

Here we further demonstrate clear differences in assay sensitivities that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. Consistent with the Phase I study, we recommend parallel use of PSV and VIA for vaccine evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Heyndrickx L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3348930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays.Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression.PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent.The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation.

Project description:The Comprehensive T Cell Vaccine Immune Monitoring Consortium (CTC-VIMC) was created to provide standardized immunogenicity monitoring services for HIV vaccine trials. The ex vivo interferon-gamma (IFN-?) ELISpot is used extensively as a primary immunogenicity assay to assess T cell-based vaccine candidates in trials for infectious diseases and cancer. Two independent, GCLP-accredited central laboratories of CTC-VIMC routinely use their own standard operating procedures (SOPs) for ELISpot within two major networks of HIV vaccine trials. Studies are imperatively needed to assess the comparability of ELISpot measurements across laboratories to benefit optimal advancement of vaccine candidates.We describe an equivalence study of the two independently qualified IFN-g ELISpot SOPs. The study design, data collection and subsequent analysis were managed by independent statisticians to avoid subjectivity. The equivalence of both response rates and positivity calls to a given stimulus was assessed based on pre-specified acceptance criteria derived from a separate pilot study.Detection of positive responses was found to be equivalent between both laboratories. The 95% C.I. on the difference in response rates, for CMV (-1.5%, 1.5%) and CEF (-0.4%, 7.8%) responses, were both contained in the pre-specified equivalence margin of interval [-15%, 15%]. The lower bound of the 95% C.I. on the proportion of concordant positivity calls for CMV (97.2%) and CEF (89.5%) were both greater than the pre-specified margin of 70%. A third CTC-VIMC central laboratory already using one of the two SOPs also showed comparability when tested in a smaller sub-study.The described study procedure provides a prototypical example for the comparison of bioanalytical methods in HIV vaccine and other disease fields. This study also provides valuable and unprecedented information for future vaccine candidate evaluations on the comparison and pooling of ELISpot results generated by the CTC-VIMC central core laboratories.

Project description:The evaluation of humoral protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 remains crucial in understanding both natural immunity and protective immunity conferred by the several vaccines implemented in the fight against COVID-19. The reference standard for the quantification of antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 is the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT). However, given that it is a laboratory-developed assay, validation is crucial in order to ensure sufficient specificity and intra- and interassay precision. In addition, a multitude of other serological assays have been developed, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), flow cytometry-based assays, luciferase-based lentiviral pseudotype assays, and commercially available human ACE2 receptor-blocking antibody tests, which offer practical advantages in the evaluation of the protective humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we validated a SARS-CoV-2 PRNT to assess both 50% and 90% neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 according to guidelines outlined by the World Health Organization. Upon validation, the reference-standard PRNT demonstrated excellent specificity and both intra- and interassay precision. Using the validated assay as a reference standard, we characterized the neutralizing antibody response in specimens from patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Finally, we conducted a small-scale multilaboratory comparison of alternate SARS-CoV-2 PRNTs and surrogate neutralization tests. These assays demonstrated substantial to perfect interrater agreement with the reference-standard PRNT and offer useful alternatives to assess humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, has infected over 246 million people and led to over 5 million deaths as of October 2021. With the approval of several efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, methods to evaluate protective immune responses will be crucial for the understanding of long-term immunity in the rapidly growing vaccinated population. The PRNT, which quantifies SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies, is used widely as a reference standard to validate new platforms but has not undergone substantial validation to ensure excellent inter- and intraassay precision and specificity. Our work is significant, as it describes the thorough validation of a PRNT, which we then used as a reference standard for the comparison of several alternative serological methods to measure SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies. These assays demonstrated excellent agreement with the reference-standard PRNT and include high-throughput platforms, which can greatly enhance capacity to assess both natural and vaccine-induced protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2.