Comparison of commercial SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays with a full virus endpoint dilution neutralization test in two different cohorts.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Adams O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9212436 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8597631 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8451402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether a positive serology result correlates with protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. There are also concerns regarding the low positive predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, especially when testing populations with low disease prevalence.MethodsA neutralization assay was validated in a set of PCR-confirmed positive specimens and in a negative cohort. In addition, 9530 specimens were screened using the Diazyme SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology assay and all positive results (N = 164 individuals) were reanalyzed using the neutralization assay, the Roche total immunoglobin assay, and the Abbott IgG assay. The relationship between the magnitude of a positive SARS-CoV-2 serology result and neutralizing activity was determined. Neutralizing antibody titers (50% inhibitory dilution, ID50) were also longitudinally monitored in patients confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay had a positive percentage agreement (PPA) of 96.6% with a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 98.0% across 100 negative control individuals. ID50 neutralization titers positively correlated with all 3 clinical serology platforms. Longitudinal monitoring of hospitalized PCR-confirmed patients with COVID-19 demonstrated they made high neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2. PPA between the Diazyme IgG assay alone and the neutralization assay was 50.6%, while combining the Diazyme IgG assay with either the Roche or Abbott platforms increased the PPA to 79.2 and 78.4%, respectively.ConclusionsThese 3 clinical serology assays positively correlate with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity observed in patients with COVID-19. All patients confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR develop neutralizing antibodies.
| S-EPMC7665417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.
| S-EPMC9927416 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7824240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an ongoing debate as to whether SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be found in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 disease. Currently, there is no consensus on whether the antibodies, if present, are protective. Our regular measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, starting in July 2020, have provided us with the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the five different immunoassays. A total of 149 patients were enrolled in our study. We measured the samples using each immunoassay, then performing a virus neutralization test and comparing the results of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with this test. We observed that the production of neutralizing antibodies is age-dependent. Elderly patients have a higher proportion of high neutralizing titers than young patients. Based on our results, and in combination with the literature findings, we can conclude that the serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement is a helpful tool in the fight against COVID-19. The assays can provide information about the patient's previous contact with the virus. Anti-spike protein assays correlate well with the virus neutralization test and can be used in the screening of potential convalescent plasma donors.
| S-EPMC8065578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surrogate endpoints offer the hope of smaller or shorter cancer trials. It is, however, important to realize they come at the cost of an unverifiable extrapolation that could lead to misleading conclusions. With cancer prevention, the focus is on hypothesis testing in small surrogate endpoint trials before deciding whether to proceed to a large prevention trial. However, it is not generally appreciated that a small surrogate endpoint trial is highly sensitive to a deviation from the key Prentice criterion needed for the hypothesis-testing extrapolation. With cancer treatment, the focus is on estimation using historical trials with both surrogate and true endpoints to predict treatment effect based on the surrogate endpoint in a new trial. Successively leaving out one historical trial and computing the predicted treatment effect in the left-out trial yields a standard error multiplier that summarizes the increased uncertainty in estimation extrapolation. If this increased uncertainty is acceptable, three additional extrapolation issues (biological mechanism, treatment following observation of the surrogate endpoint, and side effects following observation of the surrogate endpoint) need to be considered. In summary, when using surrogate endpoint analyses, an appreciation of the problems of extrapolation is crucial.
| S-EPMC3611854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-throughput serological tests that can detect neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are desirable for serosurveillance and vaccine efficacy evaluation. Although the conventional neutralization test (cVNT) remains the gold standard to confirm the presence of neutralizing antibodies in sera, the test is too labour-intensive for massive screening programs and less reproducible as live virus and cell culture is involved. Here, we performed an independent evaluation of a commercially available surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript cPass™) that can be done without biosafety level 3 containment in less than 2 h. When using the cVNT and a Luminex multiplex immunoassay (MIA) as reference, the sVNT obtained a sensitivity of 94 % (CI 90-96 %) on a panel of 317 immune sera that were obtained from hospitalized and mild COVID-19 cases from Belgium and a sensitivity of 88 % (CI 81-93 %) on a panel of 184 healthcare workers from the Democratic Republic of Congo. We also found strong antibody titer correlations (rs>0.8) among the different techniques used. In conclusion, our evaluation suggests that the sVNT could be a powerful tool to monitor/detect neutralising antibodies in cohort and population studies. The technique could be especially useful for vaccine evaluation studies in sub-Saharan Africa where the basic infrastructure to perform cVNTs is lacking.
| S-EPMC8253660 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2640999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serial limiting dilution (SLD) assays are a widely used tool in many areas of public health research to measure the concentration of target entities. This concentration can be estimated via maximum likelihood. Asymptotic as well as exact inference methods have been proposed for hypothesis testing and confidence interval construction in this one-sample problem. However, in many scientific applications, it may be of interest to compare the concentration of target entities between a pair of samples and construct valid confidence intervals for the difference in concentrations. In this paper, an exact, computationally efficient inferential procedure is proposed for hypothesis testing and confidence interval construction in the two-sample SLD assay problem. The proposed exact method is compared to an approach based on asymptotic approximations in simulation studies. The methods are illustrated using data from the University of North Carolina HIV Cure Center.
| S-EPMC9588648 | biostudies-literature