Abstract
Background: Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays. Methods: Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single-or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression. Findings: PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent. Conclusions: The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e4505 |
| Journal | PLoS One |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 20 2009 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays : The NeutNet report. / Fenyö, Eva Maria; Heath, Alan; Dispinseri, Stefania; Holmes, Harvey; Lusso, Paolo; Zolla-Pazner, Susan; Donners, Helen; Heyndrickx, Leo; Alcami, Jose; Bongertz, Vera; Jassoy, Christian; Malnati, Mauro; Montefiori, David; Moog, Christiane; Morris, Lynn; Osmanov, Saladin; Polonis, Victoria; Sattentau, Quentin; Schuitemaker, Hanneke; Sutthent, Ruengpung; Wrin, Terri; Scarlatti, Gabriella.
In: PLoS One, Vol. 4, No. 2, e4505, 20.02.2009.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays
T2 - The NeutNet report
AU - Fenyö, Eva Maria
AU - Heath, Alan
AU - Dispinseri, Stefania
AU - Holmes, Harvey
AU - Lusso, Paolo
AU - Zolla-Pazner, Susan
AU - Donners, Helen
AU - Heyndrickx, Leo
AU - Alcami, Jose
AU - Bongertz, Vera
AU - Jassoy, Christian
AU - Malnati, Mauro
AU - Montefiori, David
AU - Moog, Christiane
AU - Morris, Lynn
AU - Osmanov, Saladin
AU - Polonis, Victoria
AU - Sattentau, Quentin
AU - Schuitemaker, Hanneke
AU - Sutthent, Ruengpung
AU - Wrin, Terri
AU - Scarlatti, Gabriella
PY - 2009/2/20
Y1 - 2009/2/20
N2 - Background: Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays. Methods: Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single-or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression. Findings: PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent. Conclusions: The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation.
AB - Background: Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays. Methods: Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single-or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression. Findings: PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent. Conclusions: The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887212581&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887212581&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0004505
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0004505
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84887212581
VL - 4
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 2
M1 - e4505
ER -