Virology Unit, Biomedical Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36438. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036438. Epub 2012 May 9.
Neutralizing antibodies provide markers for vaccine-induced protective immunity in many viral infections. By analogy, HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies induced by immunization may well predict vaccine effectiveness. Assessment of neutralizing antibodies is therefore of primary importance, but is hampered by the fact that we do not know which assay(s) can provide measures of protective immunity. An international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 different laboratories previously compared different assays using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and soluble CD4 (Phase I study).
In the present study (Phase II), polyclonal reagents were evaluated by 13 laboratories. Each laboratory evaluated nine plasmas against an 8 virus panel representing different genetic subtypes and phenotypes. TriMab, a mixture of three mAbs, was used as a positive control allowing comparison of the results with Phase I in a total of nine different assays. The assays used either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (Virus Infectivity Assays, VIA), or Env (gp160)-pseudotyped viruses (pseudoviruses, PSV) produced in HEK293T cells from molecular clones or from uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically engineered cell lines in either single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs including extra- or intra-cellular p24 antigen detection, luciferase, beta-galactosidase or green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene expression.
Using TriMab, results of Phase I and Phase II were generally in agreement for six of the eight viruses tested and confirmed that the PSV assay is more sensitive than PBMC (p = 0.014). Comparisons with the polyclonal reagents showed that sensitivities were dependent on both virus and plasma.
Here we further demonstrate clear differences in assay sensitivities that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. Consistent with the Phase I study, we recommend parallel use of PSV and VIA for vaccine evaluation.
中和抗体为许多病毒感染提供了疫苗诱导的保护性免疫的标志物。通过类推,免疫诱导的 HIV-1 中和抗体很可能预测疫苗的有效性。因此,评估中和抗体至关重要,但我们不知道哪种检测方法可以提供保护性免疫的测量方法,这一点受到了阻碍。一个涉及 18 个不同实验室的国际合作组织(NeutNet)之前使用单克隆抗体(mAbs)和可溶性 CD4 比较了不同的检测方法(I 期研究)。
在本研究(II 期)中,13 个实验室评估了多克隆试剂。每个实验室使用 9 种针对代表不同遗传亚型和表型的 8 种病毒组合的血浆进行评估。TriMab,三种 mAbs 的混合物,被用作阳性对照,允许在总共 9 种不同的检测方法中与 I 期结果进行比较。检测方法使用外周血单个核细胞(PBMC)中产生的未克隆病毒(病毒感染性检测,VIA),或来自分子克隆或未克隆病毒的在 HEK293T 细胞中产生的 Env(gp160)-假型病毒(假病毒,PSV)。靶细胞包括 PBMC 和基因工程细胞系,采用单或多轮感染格式。通过使用一系列检测读出值来量化感染,包括细胞外或细胞内 p24 抗原检测、荧光素酶、β-半乳糖苷酶或绿色荧光蛋白(GFP)报告基因表达。
使用 TriMab,在测试的 8 种病毒中的 6 种中,I 期和 II 期的结果通常一致,并证实 PSV 检测比 PBMC 更敏感(p = 0.014)。与多克隆试剂的比较表明,敏感性取决于病毒和血浆。
在这里,我们进一步证明了检测敏感性的明显差异,这取决于中和试剂和病毒。与 I 期研究一致,我们建议在疫苗评估中平行使用 PSV 和 VIA。