Complementarity determining regions in SARS-CoV-2 hybrid immunity.

Pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection can boost protection elicited by COVID-19 vaccination and post-vaccination breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection can boost existing immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccination. Such 'hybrid immunity' is effective against SARS-CoV-2 variants. In order to understand 'hybrid immunity' at the molecular level we studied the complementarity determining regions (CDR) of anti-RBD (receptor binding domain) antibodies isolated from individuals with 'hybrid immunity' as well as from 'naive' (not SARS-CoV-2 infected) vaccinated individuals. CDR analysis was done by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry. Principal component analysis and partial least square differential analysis showed that COVID-19 vaccinated people share CDR profiles and that pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection or breakthrough infection further shape the CDR profile, with a CDR profile in hybrid immunity that clustered away from the CDR profile in vaccinated people without infection. Thus, our results show a CDR profile in hybrid immunity that is distinct from the vaccination-induced CDR profile.

Development and validation of a microfluidic multiplex immunoassay for the determination of levels and avidity of serum antibodies to tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis antigens.

A multiplex assay for the quantitation of immunoglobulin G (IgG) serum antibodies directed against Clostridium tetani toxin (TT), Corynebacterium diphtheriae toxoid (DTxd), and the Bordetella pertussis antigens pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) and pertactin (Prn) was developed on an Evalution® platform to enhance the evaluation of the specific antibody response towards protein antigens in suspected humoral immunodeficiencies. Evalution® is a microfluidic and microparticle-based platform with the possibility to analyse single samples and to perform real-time kinetic measurements of antibody binding. All individual antigens were covalently linked to the carboxylated microparticles after which samples and fluorescently labelled detection antibodies were flowed over the microparticles in the microfluidic channels of the assay cartridges of the system. The developed assay showed very good sensitivity, specificity, and intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CVs for the different antigens between 1.72-3.53% and 3.54-5.79%, respectively). Furthermore, the correlation of the Evalution pentaplex with a Luminex pentaplex using a panel of 48 human serum samples was excellent, with Spearman correlation coefficients between 0.936 for PT and 0.982 for DTxd (p < 0.0001 for all). Finally, we showed in a proof-of-concept experiment the potential of the Evalution® platform to simultaneously measure concentrations and binding kinetics (as a surrogate for avidity) of the IgG antibodies to the selected protein antigens. Overall, these findings show that this new Evalution pentaplex can accurately measure the antibody response to TT, DTxd, PT, FHA and Prn. It also has the potential to measure antibody binding and dissociation kinetics.

Pancreas Islet Cell-Specific Antibody Detection by ELISA.

BACKGROUND: Islet cell-specific autoantibodies are useful to classify diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of commercially available ELISAs to detect autoantibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase 65-kDa isoform (GADA), tyrosine phosphatase-related islet antigen 2 (IA-2A), zinc transporter protein 8 (ZnT8A), and insulin (IAA). The performance of ELISA was compared to the performance of RIA. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 76 newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus patients (median age 27 years, female/male: 0.65) and 131 disease controls (median age 45 years, female/male: 0.60). The ELISAs were from Medipan. RIAs were in-house methods from the Belgian Diabetes Registry or from Medipan or DIASource. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were, respectively, 97% and 97% for GADA, 61% and 99% for IA-2A, 1% and 96% for IAA, and 70% and 98% for ZnT8A. The likelihood ratio for type 1 diabetes increased with increasing antibody levels for GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A measured by ELISA. The positive predictive value of double positivity for either GADA, IA-2A, or ZnT8A was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The ELISAs to detect GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A have good performance characteristics. Combining autoantibody assays and taking into account antibody levels improves the interpretation of autoantibody testing.

Detection of multiple myositis-specific autoantibodies in unique patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: A single centre-experience and literature review: Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSAs) are thought to be mutually exclusive in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) based on studies with immunoprecipitation-based (IP) detection methods. Recently, detection of multiple MSAs in unique patients is increasingly reported, but the extent of this phenomenon remains unclear. METHODS: At our centre, we reviewed results from two line immunoassays and one dot immunoassay in 145 IIM patients and 240 controls for the presence of multiple MSAs. Pubmed and Embase were systematically searched for articles mentioning detection of multiple MSAs in IIM patients, published until February 2019. We assessed the frequency, detection method, the precise combinations and clinical phenotypes of participants with multiple MSAs. RESULTS: At our centre, detection of multiple MSAs occurred in 3.4-8.3% of patients with IIM, depending on the assay. However, no cases with full concordance across all three assays were identified. Forty-four articles reported detection of multiple MSAs, representing a total of 133 cases, including four patients with a connective tissue disease other than IIM and two healthy controls. In 101 cases all MSAs were detected using only one detection method: 40 cases with IP-based methods (most frequently used technique) and 61 cases with other assay types. In most cases the phenotype of patients with multiple MSAs matched the predicted presentation associated with one MSA and in few cases the phenotype matched with both MSAs. CONCLUSION: Detection of multiple MSAs in unique IIM patients is less rare than commonly accepted. Specificity issues of the commercially available multiplex immunoassays may, at least partly, explain the higher frequency compared to IP-based methods. 'True multiple MSA-positive' patients may exist, though they are most likely rare.

Defining Polysaccharide Antibody Deficiency: Measurement of Anti-Pneumococcal Antibodies and Anti-Salmonella typhi Antibodies in a Cohort of Patients with Recurrent Infections.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between different methods for the detection of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) responses to diagnose specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SAD) is poor and the criteria for defining a normal response lack consensus. We previously proposed fifth percentile (p5) values of PPV responses as a new cutoff for SAD. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association of SAD (determined by either World Health Organization (WHO)-standardized ELISA or multiplex bead-based assay) with abnormal response to Salmonella (S.) typhi Vi vaccination in a cohort of patients with recurrent infections. METHODS: Ninety-four patients with a clinical history suggestive of antibody deficiency received PPV and S. typhi Vi vaccines. Polysaccharide responses to either 3 or 18 pneumococcal serotypes were measured by either the WHO ELISA or a multiplex in-house bead-based assay. Anti-S. typhi Vi IgG were measured by a commercial ELISA kit. Allohemagglutinins (AHA) were measured by agglutination method. RESULTS: Based on the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) criteria for WHO ELISA, 18/94 patients were diagnosed with SAD and 22/93 based on serotype-specific p5 cutoffs for bead-based assay. The association between the two methods was significant, with 10 subjects showing abnormal response according to both techniques. Abnormal response to S. typhi Vi vaccination was found in 7 patients, 6 of which had SAD. No correlation was found between polysaccharide response and AHA, age, or clinical phenotype. CONCLUSION: The lack of evidence-based gold standards for the diagnosis of SAD represents a challenge in clinical practice. In our cohort, we confirmed the insufficient correlation between different methods of specific PPV response measurement, and showed that the S. typhi Vi response was not contributive. Caution in the interpretation of results is warranted until more reliable diagnostic methods can be validated.

Fifth Percentile Cutoff Values for Antipneumococcal Polysaccharide and Anti-Salmonella typhi Vi IgG Describe a Normal Polysaccharide Response.

BACKGROUND: Serotype-specific antibody responses to unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) evaluated by a World Health Organization (WHO)-standardized enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are the gold standard for diagnosis of specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SAD). The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) has proposed guidelines to interpret the PPV response measured by ELISA, but these are based on limited evidence. Additionally, ELISA is costly and labor-intensive. Measurement of antibody response to Salmonella typhi (S. typhi) Vi vaccine and serum allohemagglutinins (AHA) have been suggested as alternatives. However, there are no large cohort studies and cutoff values are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To establish cutoff values for antipneumococcal polysaccharide antibody response, anti-S. typhi Vi antibody, and AHA. METHODS: One hundred healthy subjects (10-55 years) were vaccinated with PPV and S. typhi Vi vaccine. Blood samples were obtained prior to and 3-4 weeks after vaccination. Polysaccharide responses to 3 serotypes were measured by WHO ELISA and to 12 serotypes by an in-house bead-based multiplex assay. Anti-S. typhi Vi IgG were measured with a commercial ELISA kit. AHA were measured by agglutination method. RESULTS: Applying AAAAI criteria, 30% of healthy subjects had a SAD. Using serotype-specific fifth percentile (p5) cutoff values for postvaccination IgG and fold increase pre- over postvaccination, only 4% of subjects had SAD. One-sided 95% prediction intervals for anti-S. typhi Vi postvaccination IgG (≥11.2 U/ml) and fold increase (≥2) were established. Eight percent had a response to S. typhi Vi vaccine below these cutoffs. AHA titer p5 cutoffs were ½ for anti-B and » for anti-A. CONCLUSION: We establish reference cutoff values for interpretation of PPV response measured by bead-based assay, cutoff values for S. typhi Vi vaccine responses, and normal values for AHA. For the first time, the intraindividual consistency of all three methods is studied in a large cohort.

Clinical autoantibody detection by microarray.

BACKGROUND: AMiDot is a microdot array-based immunoassay that allows simultaneous detection of multiple autoantibodies on a single patient. We evaluated the AMiDot "Systemic Autoimmune Disease" (SAD) panel, which detects antibodies to 17 different antigens. METHODS: AMiDot was performed on 184 samples from blood donors and on 280 randomly selected clinical samples containing antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens or to dsDNA. The results obtained by AMiDot on the clinical samples were compared to results obtained by EliA (Thermo Fisher) for anti-Ro60, anti-La, anti-RNP, anti-Scl-70, anti-CENPB, anti-Sm, and anti-Jo-1 and by Farr assay for anti-dsDNA. Discordant results were further analyzed by immunodot (D-tek). RESULTS: Concordance between AMiDot and EliA was ≥87% and κ agreement ≥0.44. When compared to EliA and immunodot (in case of discordance between AMiDot and EliA), concordance improved to ≥91% and κ agreement to ≥0.77. The sensitivity of AMiDot (compared to EliA and immunodot, in case of discordance between AMiDot and EliA) was ≥93%, except for anti-Ro60 (84%). The concordance and κ agreement of AMiDot with the Farr assay (for dsDNA antibodies) was, respectively, 84% and 0.33. The sensitivity of AMiDot for dsDNA (compared to Farr assay) was 25%. The specificity was ≥97% (in blood donors as well as in clinical samples). The within-run imprecision was 9%-27% and the between-run imprecision 29%-39%. CONCLUSIONS: AMiDot offers an alternative to line immunodot assay. Individual antibody assays might suffer from low sensitivity.