Dataset Information

Comparison of Four SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays.

ABSTRACT: Neutralizing antibodies are a major correlate of protection for many viruses including the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Thus, vaccine candidates should potently induce neutralizing antibodies to render effective protection from infection. A variety of in vitro assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies has been described. However, validation of the different assays against each other is important to allow comparison of different studies. Here, we compared four different SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays using the same set of patient samples. Two assays used replication competent SARS-CoV-2, a focus forming assay and a TCID₅₀-based assay, while the other two assays used replication defective lentiviral or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based particles pseudotyped with SARS-CoV-2 spike. All assays were robust and produced highly reproducible neutralization titers. Titers of neutralizing antibodies correlated well between the different assays and with the titers of SARS-CoV-2 S-protein binding antibodies detected in an ELISA. Our study showed that commonly used SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are robust and that results obtained with different assays are comparable.

SUBMITTER: Riepler L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7824240 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Four SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays.

Riepler Lydia L Rössler Annika A Falch Albert A Volland André A Borena Wegene W von Laer Dorothee D Kimpel Janine J

Vaccines 20201228 1

Neutralizing antibodies are a major correlate of protection for many viruses including the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Thus, vaccine candidates should potently induce neutralizing antibodies to render effective protection from infection. A variety of in vitro assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies has been described. However, validation of the different assays against each other is important to allow comparison of different studies. Here, we compared four different SARS ...[more]

PMID: 33379160

Similar Datasets

Project description:Determinants of protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection require the development of well-standardized, reproducible antibody assays. This need has led to the emergence of a variety of neutralization assays. Head-to-head evaluation of different SARS-CoV-2 neutralization platforms could facilitate comparisons across studies and laboratories. Five neutralization assays were compared using 40 plasma samples from convalescent individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): four cell-based systems using either live recombinant SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viral particles created with lentivirus (LV) or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) packaging and one surrogate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based test that measures inhibition of the spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) binding its receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2). Vero cells, Vero E6 cells, HEK293T cells expressing hACE2, and TZM-bl cells expressing hACE2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 were tested. All cell-based assays showed 50% neutralizing dilution (ND50) geometric mean titers (GMTs) that were highly correlated (Pearson r = 0.81 to 0.89) and ranged within 3.4-fold. The live virus assay and LV pseudovirus assays with HEK293T/hACE2 cells showed very similar mean titers, 141 and 178, respectively. ND50 titers positively correlated with plasma IgG targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and RBD (r = 0.63 to 0.89), but moderately correlated with nucleoprotein IgG (r = 0.46 to 0.73). ND80 GMTs mirrored ND50 data and showed similar correlation between assays and with IgG concentrations. The VSV pseudovirus assay and LV pseudovirus assay with HEK293T/hACE2 cells in low- and high-throughput versions were calibrated against the WHO SARS-CoV-2 IgG standard. High concordance between the outcomes of cell-based assays with live and pseudotyped virions enables valid cross-study comparison using these platforms.

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.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019 and has since caused a global pandemic resulting in millions of cases and deaths. Diagnostic tools and serological assays are critical for controlling the outbreak, especially assays designed to quantitate neutralizing antibody levels, considered the best correlate of protection. As vaccines become increasingly available, it is important to identify reliable methods for measuring neutralizing antibody responses that correlate with authentic virus neutralization but can be performed outside biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratories. While many neutralizing assays using pseudotyped virus have been developed, there have been few studies comparing the different assays to each other as surrogates for authentic virus neutralization. Here, we characterized three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and three pseudotyped vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) neutralization assays and assessed their concordance with authentic virus neutralization. The most accurate assays for predicting authentic virus neutralization were luciferase- and secreted embryonic alkaline phosphatase (SEAP)-expressing pseudotyped virus neutralizations, followed by green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing pseudotyped virus neutralization, and then the ELISAs. IMPORTANCE The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Prior infection or vaccination can be detected by the presence of antibodies in the blood. Antibodies in the blood are also considered to be protective against future infections from the same virus. The "gold standard" assay for detecting protective antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is neutralization of authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, this assay can only be performed under highly restrictive biocontainment conditions. We therefore characterized six antibody-detecting assays for their correlation with authentic virus neutralization. The significance of our research is in outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the different assays and identifying the optimal surrogate assay for authentic virus neutralization. This will allow for more accurate assessments of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Four SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays.

Publications

Comparison of Four SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure