Dataset Information

A multi-laboratory study of diverse RSV neutralization assays indicates feasibility for harmonization with an international standard.

ABSTRACT: A current barrier to the standardized evaluation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine candidates is the wide variety of virus neutralization assay formats currently in use for assessing immunogenicity. Assay formats vary widely in labor intensiveness, duration, and sample throughput. Furthermore, the cell lines and virus strains used are not consistent among formats. The purpose of this multi-laboratory study was to assess the variability across a diverse array of assay formats that quantitate RSV neutralizing antibodies. Using a common specimen panel, the degree of overall agreement among existing assays was evaluated to inform on the need for harmonization of assay results. A total of 12 laboratories participated in the blinded survey study by testing a panel comprised of 57 samples chosen to span the reportable titer range of the assays. An independent statistical analysis was conducted to measure overall agreement of assay results. This analysis showed that precision was consistently high, whereas agreement varied widely among assays. To examine whether agreement could be improved, we conducted a harmonization exercise using a variety of sample types as pseudo standards. The results showed that the level of agreement could be improved, and provided information on the suitability of samples for developing an international standard.

SUBMITTER: Hosken N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5439532 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A multi-laboratory study of diverse RSV neutralization assays indicates feasibility for harmonization with an international standard.

Hosken Nancy N Plikaytis Brian B Trujillo Carrie C Mahmood Kutub K Higgins Deborah D

Vaccine 20170502 23

A current barrier to the standardized evaluation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine candidates is the wide variety of virus neutralization assay formats currently in use for assessing immunogenicity. Assay formats vary widely in labor intensiveness, duration, and sample throughput. Furthermore, the cell lines and virus strains used are not consistent among formats. The purpose of this multi-laboratory study was to assess the variability across a diverse array of assay formats that quan ...[more]

PMID: 28476625

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:BackgroundNeutralizing 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).MethodsIn 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.FindingsUsing 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.ConclusionsHere 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.

Dataset Information

A multi-laboratory study of diverse RSV neutralization assays indicates feasibility for harmonization with an international standard.

Publications

A multi-laboratory study of diverse RSV neutralization assays indicates feasibility for harmonization with an international standard.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets