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

Influence of C-reactive protein on thrombin generation assay

To the editors, A close association between inflammatory state,C-reactive protein (CRP) and thromboembolic eventshas been described at least a decade ago [1] but hasresurfaced recently with the outbreak of the severe acuterespiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [...

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

Peri-infection titers of neutralizing and binding antibodies as a predictor of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated healthcare professionals:importance of the timing

The BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine is highly effective in reducing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death. However, many subjects developed a breakthrough infection despite a full vaccination scheme. Since the waned efficacy of mRNA vaccines is correlated with the decrease of antibodies occurring over time, we aimed at evaluating whether lower levels of antibodies were associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infection in a cohort of breakthrough subjects that received three vaccine doses. Total binding antibodies against the RBD of the S1 subunit (Roche Diagnostics, Machelen, Belgium) and neutralizing antibodies using the Omicron B.1.1.529 variant pseudovirus were measured. Based on individual kinetic curves, the antibody titer of each subject was interpolated just before the breakthrough infection and compared to a matched-control group that did not develop a breakthrough infection. Lower levels of total binding and neutralizing antibodies were observed compared to the control group (6.900 [95% CI; 5.101-9.470] vs. 11.395 BAU/mL [8.627-15.050] [p=0.0301] and 26.6 [18.0-39.3] vs. 59.5 dilution titer [32.3-110] [p=0.0042], respectively). The difference between breakthrough and control subjects was mostly observed for neutralizing antibodies before three months after the homologous booster administration (46.5 [18.2-119] vs. 381 [285-509] [p=0.0156]). Considering the measurement of total binding antibodies before 3 months, there was no significant difference (p=0.4375). In conclusion, our results showed that subjects that developed a breakthrough infection had lower levels of neutralizing and total binding antibodies compared to controls. The difference was mostly noticeable considering neutralizing antibodies, especially for infections occurring before 3 months after the booster administration

Clinical performance of the Elecsys electrochemiluminescent immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies

SCOPUS: le.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Early antibody response in healthcare professionals after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2)

Data on the immune response after two doses of BNT162b2 are so far limited. Previously infected individuals were excluded from pivotal clinical trials and the optimal dose regimen in this population has not been clearly studied. The CRO-VAX HCP study aims at investigate the early antibody response in a population of healthcare professionals having received two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The CRO-VAX HCP study is a multicenter, prospective, interventional study conducted in several sites in Belgium. The study included 231 healthcare professional volunteers who received the two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 73 were previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 and 158 were uninfected and seronegative. In the first group, blood samples were collected at baseline and after 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28 days. In the second group, samples were obtained at baseline and after 14 and 28 days. Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit of the spike protein were measured in all individuals at different time points. In uninfected individuals, 95.5% (95% CI 91.0-98.2%) developed anti-spike antibodies after 14 days and a 24.9-fold rise (95% CI 21.4-28.9%) in antibody titer was observed after the second dose. In previously infected individuals, peak antibody response was reached after 7 days (i.e. 6,347 U/mL) and the second dose did not lead to significantly higher antibody titers (i.e. 8,856 to 11,911 U/mL). Antibody titers were higher in previously infected individuals. This study supports the concept that a single dose of BNT162b2 would be sufficient in previously infected individuals