Evaluation of a surrogate virus neutralization test for high-throughput serosurveillance of SARS-CoV-2

  1. Joachim Mariën
  2. Johan Michiels
  3. Leo Heyndrickx
  4. Antoine Nkuba-Ndaye
  5. Ann Ceulemans
  6. Koen Bartholomeeusen
  7. Joule Madinga
  8. Placide Mbala-Kingebeni
  9. Veerle Vanlerberghe
  10. Steve Ahuka-Mundeke
  11. Lin-Fa Wang
  12. Kevin K. Ariën

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114228
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252047: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Neutralizing antibody titers were only assessed in Congolese samples that were suggested to be positive by one of the following Bab-assays: Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG, Quickzen (Zentech, Belgium) IgG and IgM(12).
    Anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG , Quickzen ( Zentech , Belgium ) IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    This solution was added to Vero cells (18.000cells/well) in a 96well plate and incubated for 5 days (37 °C / 7 % CO2).
    Vero
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    A limitation of our study is that we only included a small panel of African samples (n=55) to assess the specificity of the test and we cannot rule-out cross-reactivity at low titers on the cVNT, which we used as reference. However, there is overall agreement that the specificity of the sVNT is acceptably high (94-99% at sVNT20 and 99-100% at sVNT30) when evaluated on a panel containing challenging samples, including other coronaviruses or other acute infections (cross-reactivity against SARS-CoV-1 is noted)(8,10,13,14). In conclusion, our results suggest that the commercial sVNT could be a powerful tool to determine neutralising antibodies in cohort and population studies, although other high-throughput assays (such as a Luminex MIA) might outperform the sVNT in terms of individual diagnosis for evidence of infection. Another advantage of this commercial sVNT is that it allows standardization between clinical laboratories without the need to use live biological materials or biosafety containment. Together with the international unit (IU) recently established by WHO and National Institute of Biological Standards and Controls (NIBSC)(15), this platform could be particularly useful for vaccine evaluation in sub-Saharan Africa, where diagnostic labs lack the infrastructure to run cVNTs. During serosurveillance studies, the test can also be run as an independent test to exclude cross-reactivity after the initial screening with a Luminex MIA assay. Furthermore, given that the test...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04373889Active, not recruitingCOVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Belgian Hospitals

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252047v1 on medRxiv