SARS Coronavirus-2 Microneutralisation and Commercial Serological Assays Correlated Closely for Some but Not All Enzyme Immunoassays

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies provides important research and diagnostic information relating to COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and host immune response. A greater understanding of the relationship between functionally neutralising antibodies detected using microneutralisation assays and binding antibodies detected using scalable enzyme immunoassays (EIA) is needed in order to address protective immunity post-infection or vaccination, and assess EIA suitability as a surrogate test for screening of convalescent plasma donors. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with signal cut-off ratios in five commercially available EIAs, and one in-house assay based on expressed spike protein targets. Sera from recovered patients or convalescent plasma donors who reported laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 200), and negative control sera collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 100), were assessed in parallel. Performance was assessed by calculating EIA sensitivity and specificity with reference to microneutralisation. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 166 (83%) samples. Compared with this, the most sensitive EIAs were the Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (98%) and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%), which detect total antibody targeting the N and S1 antigens, respectively. The assay with the best quantitative relationship with microneutralisation was the Euroimmun IgG. These results suggest the marker used (total Ab vs. IgG vs. IgA) and the target antigen are important determinants of assay performance. The strong correlation between microneutralisation and some commercially available assays demonstrates their potential for clinical and research use in assessing protection following infection or vaccination, and use as a surrogate test to assess donor suitability for convalescent plasma donation

Angiopoietin-1 Treatment Reduces Inflammation but Does Not Prevent Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

Background: Loss of integrity of the epithelial and endothelial barriers is thought to be a prominent feature of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Based on its function in vascular integrity, we hypothesize that the angiopoietin (Ang)-Tie2 system plays a role in the development of VILI. The present study was designed to examine the effects of mechanical ventilation on the Ang-Tie2 system in lung tissue. Moreover, we evaluated whether treatment with Ang-1, a Tie2 receptor agonist, protects against inflammation, vascular leakage and impaired gas exchange induced by mechanical ventilation. Methods: Mice were anesthetized, tracheotomized and mechanically ventilated for 5 hours with either an inspiratory pressure of 10 cmH(2)O ('low' tidal volume similar to 7.5 ml/kg; LVT) or 18 cmH(2)O ('high' tidal volume similar to 15 ml/kg; HVT). At initiation of HVT-ventilation, recombinant human Ang-1 was intravenously administered (1 or 4 mu g per animal). Non-ventilated mice served as controls. Results: HVT-ventilation influenced the Ang-Tie2 system in lungs of healthy mice since Ang-1, Ang-2 and Tie2 mRNA were decreased. Treatment with Ang-1 increased Akt-phosphorylation indicating Tie2 signaling. Ang-1 treatment reduced infiltration of granulocytes and expression of keratinocyte-derived chemokine (KC), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-2, monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1 and interleukin (IL)-1 beta caused by HVT-ventilation. Importantly, Ang-1 treatment did not prevent vascular leakage and impaired gas exchange in HVT-ventilated mice despite inhibition of inflammation, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Ang-2 expression. Conclusions: Ang-1 treatment downregulates pulmonary inflammation, VEGF and Ang-2 expression but does not protect against vascular leakage and impaired gas exchange induced by HVT-ventilatio

Differential Responses of Calcifying and Non-Calcifying Epibionts of a Brown Macroalga to Present-Day and Future Upwelling pCO2

Seaweeds are key species of the Baltic Sea benthic ecosystems. They are the substratum of numerous fouling epibionts like bryozoans and tubeworms. Several of these epibionts bear calcified structures and could be impacted by the high pCO2 events of the late summer upwellings in the Baltic nearshores. Those events are expected to increase in strength and duration with global change and ocean acidification. If calcifying epibionts are impacted by transient acidification as driven by upwelling events, their increasing prevalence could cause a shift of the fouling communities toward fleshy species. The aim of the present study was to test the sensitivity of selected seaweed macrofoulers to transient elevation of pCO2 in their natural microenvironment, i.e. the boundary layer covering the thallus surface of brown seaweeds. Fragments of the macroalga Fucus serratus bearing an epibiotic community composed of the calcifiers Spirorbis spirorbis (Annelida) and Electra pilosa (Bryozoa) and the non-calcifier Alcyonidium hirsutum (Bryozoa) were maintained for 30 days under three pCO2 conditions: natural 460±59 µatm, present-day upwelling1193±166 µatm and future upwelling 3150±446 µatm. Only the highest pCO2 caused a significant reduction of growth rates and settlement of S. spirorbis individuals. Additionally, S. spirorbis settled juveniles exhibited enhanced calcification of 40% during daylight hours compared to dark hours, possibly reflecting a day-night alternation of an acidification-modulating effect by algal photosynthesis as opposed to an acidification-enhancing effect of algal respiration. E. pilosa colonies showed significantly increased growth rates at intermediate pCO2 (1193 µatm) but no response to higher pCO2. No effect of acidification on A. hirsutum colonies growth rates was observed. The results suggest a remarkable resistance of the algal macro-epibionts to levels of acidification occurring at present day upwellings in the Baltic. Only extreme future upwelling conditions impacted the tubeworm S. spirorbis, but not the bryozoans

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders