Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.

Calibration of two validated SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays for COVID-19 vaccine evaluation.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are key biomarkers considered to be associated with vaccine efficacy. In United States government-sponsored phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccines, nAbs are measured by two different validated pseudovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays, with each trial using one of the two assays. Here we describe and compare the nAb titers obtained in the two assays. We observe that one assay consistently yielded higher nAb titers than the other when both assays were performed on the World Health Organization's anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin International Standard, COVID-19 convalescent sera, and mRNA-1273 vaccinee sera. To overcome the challenge this difference in readout poses in comparing/combining data from the two assays, we evaluate three calibration approaches and show that readouts from the two assays can be calibrated to a common scale. These results may aid decision-making based on data from these assays for the evaluation and licensure of new or adapted COVID-19 vaccines.

Different Neutralization Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Cell-to-Cell and Cell-Free Modes of Infection to Convalescent Sera.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has posed a global threat to human lives and economics. One of the best ways to determine protection against the infection is to quantify the neutralizing activity of serum antibodies. Multiple assays have been developed to validate SARS-CoV-2 neutralization; most of them utilized lentiviral or vesicular stomatitis virus-based particles pseudotyped with the spike (S) protein, making them safe and acceptable to work with in many labs. However, these systems are only capable of measuring infection with purified particles. This study has developed a pseudoviral assay with replication-dependent reporter vectors that can accurately quantify the level of infection directly from the virus producing cell to the permissive target cell. Comparative analysis of cell-free and cell-to-cell infection revealed that the neutralizing activity of convalescent sera was more than tenfold lower in cell cocultures than in the cell-free mode of infection. As the pseudoviral system could not properly model the mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, similar experiments were performed with replication-competent coronavirus, which detected nearly complete SARS-CoV-2 cell-to-cell infection resistance to neutralization by convalescent sera. These findings suggest that the cell-to-cell mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, for which the mechanisms are largely unknown, could be of great importance for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

Towards Quantitative and Standardized Serological and Neutralization Assays for COVID-19.

Quantitative and robust serology assays are critical measurements underpinning global COVID-19 response to diagnostic, surveillance, and vaccine development. Here, we report a proof-of-concept approach for the development of quantitative, multiplexed flow cytometry-based serological and neutralization assays. The serology assays test the IgG and IgM against both the full-length spike antigens and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike antigen. Benchmarking against an RBD-specific SARS-CoV IgG reference standard, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibody titer was quantified in the range of 37.6 µg/mL to 31.0 ng/mL. The quantitative assays are highly specific with no correlative cross-reactivity with the spike proteins of MERS, SARS1, OC43 and HKU1 viruses. We further demonstrated good correlation between anti-RBD antibody titers and neutralizing antibody titers. The suite of serology and neutralization assays help to improve measurement confidence and are complementary and foundational for clinical and epidemiologic studies.

Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test for Detection of Antibody in Human, Canine, Cat, and Hamster Sera.

Surrogate neutralization assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that can be done without biosafety level 3 containment and in multiple species are desirable. We evaluate a recently developed surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) in comparison to 90% plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT90) in human, canine, cat, and hamster sera. With PRNT90 as the reference, sVNT had sensitivity of 98.9% and specificity of 98.8%. Using a panel of immune sera corresponding to other coronaviruses, we confirm the lack of cross-reactivity to other coronaviruses in SARS-CoV-2 sVNT and PRNT90, except for cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-1 in sVNT.

Clinical performance of different SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tests.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Vircell COVID-19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in-house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction-diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in-patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5-9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10-18).

Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies to an Automated Chemiluminescent Serological Immunoassay.

INTRODUCTION: Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are capable of binding to a virus to render it incapable of infection. The ability of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological tests to detect NAbs has not been widely reported. We sought to correlate the antibodies detected by an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay with NAbs. METHODS: Residual serum samples from 35 patients that had a positive antibody test using the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay and 2 antibody-negative control sera were tested for NAbs using a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). RESULTS: NAbs were detected in 66% (23/35) of the antibody-positive samples. The immunoassay signal value ranged from 21.7 to 131.3 AU/mL (median, 90.5) with significant correlation between it and the PRNT (r = 0.61, P = 0.002). In the samples without NAbs, the immunoassay signal ranged from 16.3 to 66.2 AU/mL (median, 27.2). An immunoassay signal cutoff of >41 AU/mL was 91% sensitive and 92% specific for the detection of NAbs. DISCUSSION: It is important that correlates of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 be identified and NAbs are considered to be central indicators of such. PRNT is the gold-standard test for identifying NAbs but it cannot be used for large-scale testing of populations. It is necessary to establish relationships between it and widely used commercial serological assays for SARS-CoV-2.

A highly specific and sensitive serological assay detects SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in COVID-19 patients that correlate with neutralization.

OBJECTIVE: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic challenges national health systems and the global economy. Monitoring of infection rates and seroprevalence can guide public health measures to combat the pandemic. This depends on reliable tests on active and former infections. Here, we set out to develop and validate a specific and sensitive enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. METHODS: In our ELISA, we used SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and a stabilized version of the spike (S) ectodomain as antigens. We assessed sera from patients infected with seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 and controls. We determined and monitored IgM-, IgA- and IgG-antibody responses towards these antigens. In addition, for a panel of 22 sera, virus neutralization and ELISA parameters were measured and correlated. RESULTS: The RBD-based ELISA detected SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies, did not cross-react with seasonal coronavirus antibodies and correlated with virus neutralization (R2 = 0.89). Seroconversion started at 5 days after symptom onset and led to robust antibody levels at 10 days after symptom onset. We demonstrate high specificity (99.3%; N = 1000) and sensitivity (92% for IgA, 96% for IgG and 98% for IgM; > 10 days after PCR-proven infection; N = 53) in serum. CONCLUSIONS: With the described RBD-based ELISA protocol, we provide a reliable test for seroepidemiological surveys. Due to high specificity and strong correlation with virus neutralization, the RBD ELISA holds great potential to become a preferred tool to assess thresholds of protective immunity after infection and vaccination.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: State of the Art.

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy has been used since the early 1900s to treat emerging infectious diseases; its efficacy was later associated with the evidence that polyclonal neutralizing antibodies can reduce the duration of viremia. Recent large outbreaks of viral diseases for which effective antivirals or vaccines are still lacking has renewed the interest in CP as a life-saving treatment. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to the scaling up of CP therapy to unprecedented levels. Compared with historical usage, pathogen reduction technologies have now added an extra layer of safety to the use of CP, and new manufacturing approaches are being explored. This review summarizes historical settings of application, with a focus on betacoronaviruses, and surveys current approaches for donor selection and CP collection, pooling technologies, pathogen inactivation systems, and banking of CP. We additionally list the ongoing registered clinical trials for CP throughout the world and discuss the trial results published thus far.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies using a CPE-based colorimetric live virus micro-neutralization assay in human serum samples.

The micro-neutralization assay is a fundamental test in virology, immunology, vaccine assessment, and epidemiology studies. Since the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak at the end of December 2019 in China, it has become extremely important to have well-established and validated diagnostic and serological assays for this new emerging virus. Here, we present a micro-neutralization assay with the use of SARS-CoV-2 wild type virus with two different methods of read-out. We evaluated the performance of this assay using human serum samples taken from an Italian seroepidemiological study being performed at the University of Siena, along with the human monoclonal antibody CR3022 and some iper-immune animal serum samples against Influenza and Adenovirus strains. The same panel of human samples have been previously tested in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as a pre-screening. Positive, borderline, and negative ELISA samples were evaluated in neutralization assay using two different methods of read-out: subjective (by means of an inverted optical microscope) and objective (by means of a spectrophotometer). Our findings suggest that at least 50% of positive ELISA samples are positive in neutralization as well, and that method is able to quantify different antibody concentrations in a specific manner. Taken together, our results confirm that the colorimetric cytopathic effect-based microneutralization assay could be used as a valid clinical test method for epidemiological and vaccine studies.