Dynamics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Following Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Correlation with Commercial Serologic Tests. A Reappraisal and Indirect Comparison with Vaccinated Subjects.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antibodies, Neutralizing
/ immunology
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
BNT162 Vaccine
/ immunology
COVID-19
/ immunology
COVID-19 Serological Testing
/ methods
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Immunogenicity, Vaccine
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Middle Aged
Neutralization Tests
/ methods
SARS-CoV-2
/ immunology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Vaccination
Young Adult
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
neutralizing antibody
Journal
Viruses
ISSN: 1999-4915
Titre abrégé: Viruses
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101509722
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 11 2021
22 11 2021
Historique:
received:
20
10
2021
revised:
17
11
2021
accepted:
19
11
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) represent the real source of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections by preventing the virus from entering target cells. The gold standard in the detection of these antibodies is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). As these experiments must be done in a very secure environment, other techniques based on pseudoviruses: pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) or surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) have been developed. Binding assays, on the other hand, measure total antibodies or IgG, IgM, and IgA directed against one epitope of the SARS-CoV-2, independently of their neutralizing capacity. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of six commercial binding assays to the pVNT and sVNT. In this study, we used blood samples from a cohort of 62 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Based on the results of the neutralizing assays, adapted cut-offs for the binding assays were calculated. The use of these adapted cut-offs does not permit to improve the accuracy of the serological assays and we did not find an adapted cut-off able to improve the capacity of these tests to detect NAbs. For a part of the population, a longitudinal follow-up with at least two samples for the same patient was performed. From day 14 to day 291, more than 75% of the samples were positive for NAbs (
Identifiants
pubmed: 34835135
pii: v13112329
doi: 10.3390/v13112329
pmc: PMC8621742
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Neutralizing
0
Antibodies, Viral
0
BNT162 Vaccine
N38TVC63NU
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Viruses. 2021 Jul 14;13(7):
pubmed: 34372570
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):2004-2010
pubmed: 32330303
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Sep 28;9(10):
pubmed: 34696200
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 12;12(1):288
pubmed: 33436577
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 21;11(1):2062
pubmed: 33479465
Nat Med. 2021 Jul;27(7):1205-1211
pubmed: 34002089
Pharmacotherapy. 2020 Aug;40(8):857-868
pubmed: 32643218
J Infect. 2021 Oct;83(4):e4-e5
pubmed: 34407421
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;146(1):23-34
pubmed: 32445839
J Clin Virol. 2021 Nov;144:104988
pubmed: 34607239
J Clin Virol. 2021 Jun;139:104820
pubmed: 33865031
Microorganisms. 2021 Mar 08;9(3):
pubmed: 33800489
N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 14;385(16):1474-1484
pubmed: 34320281
Microorganisms. 2021 Aug 31;9(9):
pubmed: 34576743