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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Microbiology Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7481/15/1/28 |
| _version_ | 1797240012897517568 |
|---|---|
| author | Constant Gillot Julien Favresse Clara David Vincent Maloteau Jean-Michel Dogne Jonathan Douxfils |
| author_facet | Constant Gillot Julien Favresse Clara David Vincent Maloteau Jean-Michel Dogne Jonathan Douxfils |
| author_sort | Constant Gillot |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T18:00:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9f029fc761294df1b8f51d0ec24b926b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2036-7481 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T18:00:40Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microbiology Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-9f029fc761294df1b8f51d0ec24b926b2024-03-27T13:54:54ZengMDPI AGMicrobiology Research2036-74812024-03-0115142243010.3390/microbiolres15010028An 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 CohortConstant Gillot0Julien Favresse1Clara David2Vincent Maloteau3Jean-Michel Dogne4Jonathan Douxfils5Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, BelgiumClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, BelgiumQualiblood s.a., QUALIresearch, 5000 Namur, BelgiumClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, BelgiumClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, BelgiumClinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Unit, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences, Namur Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, BelgiumBackground: 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7481/15/1/28COVID-19SARS-CoV-2neutralizing antibodiesimmune response |
| spellingShingle | Constant Gillot Julien Favresse Clara David Vincent Maloteau Jean-Michel Dogne Jonathan Douxfils 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 Microbiology Research COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies immune response |
| title | 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 |
| title_full | 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 |
| title_fullStr | 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 |
| title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
| title_short | 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 |
| title_sort | 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 |
| topic | COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies immune response |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7481/15/1/28 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT constantgillot anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT julienfavresse anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT claradavid anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT vincentmaloteau anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT jeanmicheldogne anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT jonathandouxfils anevaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT constantgillot evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT julienfavresse evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT claradavid evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT vincentmaloteau evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT jeanmicheldogne evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort AT jonathandouxfils evaluationofasarscov2pseudovirusneutralizationtestandacomparisontoasarscov2surrogatevirusneutralizationtestinacovid19longtermfollowupcohort |