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

Constant Gillot, J. Favresse, C. David, Vincent Maloteau, J. Dogné, J. Douxfils
{"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","authors":"Constant Gillot, J. Favresse, C. David, Vincent Maloteau, J. Dogné, J. Douxfils","doi":"10.3390/microbiolres15010028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":506564,"journal":{"name":"Microbiology Research","volume":"125 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres15010028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
在 COVID-19 长期随访队列中评估 SARS-CoV-2 伪病毒中和试验并与 SARS-CoV-2 代理病毒中和试验进行比较
背景:抗 SARS-CoV-2 中和抗体的检测非常重要,因为它们代表了能够阻止病毒入侵人体细胞的抗体子集。本研究旨在评估内部假病毒中和试验(pVNT)与商业代用中和试验(sVNT)的临床表现。材料和方法:使用 pVNT 和 sVNT 技术分析了来自 75 名 COVID-19 患者的 114 份 RT-PCR 阳性样本。同时还分析了 56 份流行前样本,以评估两种技术的特异性。此外,还对 pVNT 的重复性和再现性进行了分析。结果显示计算得出 pVNT 的重复性变异系数 (CV) 为 10.27%。在再现性测试中,低 NAbs 滴度的变异系数为 16.12%,高 NAbs 滴度的变异系数为 6.40%。在临床灵敏度方面,114 个 RT-PCR 阳性样本中有 90 个 pVNT 阳性(78.94%),97 个 sVNT 阳性(84.21%)。在临床特异性方面,两种技术检测的 56 个流行前样本均为阴性。将 sVNT 与 pVNT 相比,特异性和敏感性分别为 66.67% (95%CI: 47.81-85.53%) 和 98.88% (95%CI: 96.72-99.99%)。结论自动 sVNT 技术获得的结果与内部开发的 pVNT 技术获得的结果一致。各种重复性和再现性测试的结果表明,全手动 pVNT 技术具有良好的稳健性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信