ABSTRACT
The neutralization assays are considered the gold-standard being capable of evaluating and detecting, functional antibodies. To date, many different protocols exist for micro-neutralization (MN) assay which varies in several steps: cell number and seeding conditions, virus amount used in the infection step, virus-serum-cells incubation time and read out. The aim of the present preliminary study was to carry out SARS-CoV-2 wild type MN assay in order to investigate which optimal tissue culture infective dose 50 (TCID50) infective dose in use is the most adequate choice for implementation in terms of reproducibility, standardization possibilities and comparability of results. Therefore, we assessed the MN by using two viral infective doses: the "standard" dose of 100 TCID50/well and a reduced dose of 25 TCID50/well. The results obtained, yielded by MN on using the lower infective dose (25 TCID50), were higher respect to those obtained with the standard infective dose. This suggests that the lower dose can potentially have a positive impact on the detection and estimation of real amount of neutralizing antibodies present in a given sample, showing higher sensitivity maintaining high specificity.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Neutralization Tests , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
The recent outbreak of a novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and its rapid spread across the continents has generated an urgent need for assays to detect the neutralising activity of human sera or human monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and to evaluate the serological immunity in humans. Since the accessibility of live virus microneutralisation (MN) assays with SARS-CoV-2 is limited and requires enhanced bio-containment, the approach based on "pseudotyping" can be considered a useful complement to other serological assays. After fully characterising lentiviral pseudotypes bearing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we employed them in pseudotype-based neutralisation assays in order to profile the neutralising activity of human serum samples from an Italian sero-epidemiological study. The results obtained with pseudotype-based neutralisation assays mirrored those obtained when the same panel of sera was tested against the wild type virus, showing an evident convergence of the pseudotype-based neutralisation and MN results. The overall results lead to the conclusion that the pseudotype-based neutralisation assay is a valid alternative to using the wild-type strain, and although this system needs to be optimised and standardised, it can not only complement the classical serological methods, but also allows serological assessments to be made when other methods cannot be employed, especially in a human pandemic context.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Lentivirus/genetics , Neutralization Tests/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Animals , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , Cell Line , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Immune Sera/immunology , Italy/epidemiology , Plasmids/genetics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/biosynthesis , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/physiology , Transfection , Vesiculovirus/genetics , Viral LoadABSTRACT
The first case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Finland was confirmed on 29 January 2020. No secondary cases were detected. We describe the clinical picture and laboratory findings 3-23 days since the first symptoms. The SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 virus strain was isolated, the genome showing a single nucleotide substitution to the reference strain from Wuhan. Neutralising antibody response appeared within 9 days along with specific IgM and IgG response, targeting particularly nucleocapsid and spike proteins.