Optical pumping of a lithium atomic beam for atom interferometry

We apply optical pumping to prepare the lithium beam of our atom interferometer in a single hyperfine-Zeeman sublevel: we use two components of the D1-line for pumping the 7Li atoms in a dark state F,mF=+2 (or -2) sublevel. The optical pumping efficiency has been characterized by two techniques: state-selective laser atom deflection or magnetic dephasing of the atom interferometer signals. The first technique has not achieved a high sensitivity, because of a limited signal to noise ratio, but magnetic dephasing signals have shown that about 95% of the population has been transferred in the aimed sublevel, with similar results for three mean velocities of the atomic beam covering the range 744-1520m/s

Test of the He-McKellar-Wilkens topological phase by atom interferometry. Part II: the experiment and its results

In this paper, we describe an experimental test of the He-McKellar-Wilkens (HMW) topological phase with our lithium atom interferometer. The expected value of the HMW phase shift in our experiment is small and its measurement was difficult because of stray phase shifts due to small experimental defects. We start by describing our setup and we characterize the effects of the electric and magnetic fields needed to observe the HMW effect. Then, we develop a model of our interferometer signals including all the defects we have identified. After various tests of this model, we use it to suppress the largest part of the stray phase shifts. We thus obtain a series of measurements of the HMW phase: the results are 31% larger than expected and this discrepancy is probably due to some limitations of our model

Measurement of the Aharonov-Casher geometric phase with a separated-arm atom interferometer

In this letter, we report a measurement of the Aharonov-Casher (AC) geometric phase with our lithium atom interferometer. The AC phase appears when a particle carrying a magnetic dipole propagates in a transverse electric field. The first measurement of the AC phase was done with a neutron interferometer in 1989 by A. Cimmino \textit{et al.} (Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{63}, 380, 1989) and all the following experiments were done with Ramsey or Ramsey-Bord\'e interferometers with molecules or atoms. In our experiment, we use lithium atoms pumped in a single hyperfine-Zeeman sublevel and we measure the AC-phase by applying opposite electric fields on the two interferometer arms. Our measurements are in good agreement with the expected theoretical values and they prove that this phase is independent of the atom velocity.Comment: 6 page

Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody with Pseudotyped Virus-based Test on HEK-293T hACE2 Cells

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are of particular importance because they can prevent binding of the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor present at the surface of human cells, preventing virus entry into the host cells. The gold standard method for detection of NAbs is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Based on the measurement of cell lysis due to viral infection, this test is able to detect antibodies that prevent cell infection (Muruato et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2021). This technique requires the use of live pathogens, i.e., SARS-CoV-2 in this case, and must be done in a biosafety level 3 (BL3) laboratory. In addition, it requires expensive installations, skillful and meticulous staff, and a high workload, which prevents its wide implementation even in research laboratories. A SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus will express the S protein responsible for cell entrance, but will not express the pathogenic genetic material of the virus, making them less dangerous for laboratory staff and the environment. Graphic abstract: [Image: see text

Dynamics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Following Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Correlation with Commercial Serologic Tests:A Reappraisal and Indirect Comparison with Vaccinated Subjects

Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) represent the real source of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections by preventing the virus from entering target cells. The gold standard in the detection of these antibodies is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). As these experiments must be done in a very secure environment, other techniques based on pseudoviruses: pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) or surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) have been developed. Binding assays, on the other hand, measure total antibodies or IgG, IgM, and IgA directed against one epitope of the SARS-CoV-2, independently of their neutralizing capacity. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of six commercial binding assays to the pVNT and sVNT. In this study, we used blood samples from a cohort of 62 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Based on the results of the neutralizing assays, adapted cut-offs for the binding assays were calculated. The use of these adapted cut-offs does not permit to improve the accuracy of the serological assays and we did not find an adapted cut-off able to improve the capacity of these tests to detect NAbs. For a part of the population, a longitudinal follow-up with at least two samples for the same patient was performed. From day 14 to day 291, more than 75% of the samples were positive for NAbs (n = 87/110, 79.1%). Interestingly, 6 months post symptoms onset, the majority of the samples (N = 44/52, 84.6%) were still positive for NAbs. This is in sharp contrast with the results we obtained 6 months post-vaccination in our cohort of healthcare workers who have received the two-dose regimens of BNT162b2. In this cohort of vaccinated subjects, 43% (n = 25/58) of the participants no longer exhibit NAbs activity 180 days after the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2

An Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Pseudovirus Neutralization Test and A Comparison to a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in a COVID-19 Long-Term Follow-Up Cohort

Background: The detection of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is important since they represent the subset of antibodies able to prevent the virus to invade human cells. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performances of an in-house pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) versus a commercial surrogate neutralization test (sVNT). Material and Methods: A total of 114 RT-PCR positives samples from 75 COVID-19 patients were analyzed using a pVNT and an sVNT technique. Fifty-six pre-pandemic samples were also analyzed to assess the specificity of the two techniques. An analysis of the repeatability and the reproducibility of the pVNT was also performed. Results: A coefficient of variation (CV) of 10.27% for the repeatability of the pVNT was computed. For the reproducibility test, CVs ranged from 16.12% for low NAbs titer to 6.40% for high NAbs titer. Regarding the clinical sensitivity, 90 RT-PCR positive samples out of 114 were positive with the pVNT (78.94%), and 97 were positive with the sVNT (84.21%). About the clinical specificity, all 56 pre-pandemic samples were negative in both techniques. When comparing the sVNT to the pVNT, the specificity and sensibility were 66.67% (95%CI: 47.81–85.53%) and 98.88% (95%CI: 96.72–99.99%), respectively. Conclusions: The results obtained with the automated sVNT technique are consistent with those obtained with the pVNT technique developed in-house. The results of the various repeatability and reproducibility tests demonstrate the good robustness of the fully manual pVNT technique.</p