International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet report

Eva Maria Fenyö, Alan Heath, Stefania Dispinseri, Harvey Holmes, Paolo Lusso, Susan Zolla-Pazner, Helen Donners, Leo Heyndrickx, Jose Alcami, Vera Bongertz, Christian Jassoy, Mauro Malnati, David Montefiori, Christiane Moog, Lynn Morris, Saladin Osmanov, Victoria Polonis, Quentin Sattentau, Hanneke Schuitemaker, Ruengpung SutthentTerri Wrin, Gabriella Scarlatti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

95 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Article numbere4505
JournalPLoS One
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 20 2009

Fingerprint

neutralization tests
Assays
Viruses
HIV
assays
viruses
pathogenicity
neutralization
Inhibitory Concentration 50
mononuclear leukocytes
Blood Cells
Vaccines
inhibitory concentration 50
Blood
HEK293 Cells
beta-Galactosidase
Infection
Neutralizing Antibodies
antigen detection
Luciferases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Fenyö, E. M., Heath, A., Dispinseri, S., Holmes, H., Lusso, P., Zolla-Pazner, S., ... Scarlatti, G. (2009). International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet report. PLoS One, 4(2), [e4505]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004505

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 journalArticle

Fenyö, EM, Heath, A, Dispinseri, S, Holmes, H, Lusso, P, Zolla-Pazner, S, Donners, H, Heyndrickx, L, Alcami, J, Bongertz, V, Jassoy, C, Malnati, M, Montefiori, D, Moog, C, Morris, L, Osmanov, S, Polonis, V, Sattentau, Q, Schuitemaker, H, Sutthent, R, Wrin, T & Scarlatti, G 2009, 'International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet report', PLoS One, vol. 4, no. 2, e4505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004505
Fenyö EM, Heath A, Dispinseri S, Holmes H, Lusso P, Zolla-Pazner S et al. International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet report. PLoS One. 2009 Feb 20;4(2). e4505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004505
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. / International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays : The NeutNet report. In: PLoS One. 2009 ; Vol. 4, No. 2.
@article{a08da59679d74dcd90455e5d6748a0b2,
title = "International network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet report",
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.",
author = "Feny{\"o}, {Eva Maria} and Alan Heath and Stefania Dispinseri and Harvey Holmes and Paolo Lusso and Susan Zolla-Pazner and Helen Donners and Leo Heyndrickx and Jose Alcami and Vera Bongertz and Christian Jassoy and Mauro Malnati and David Montefiori and Christiane Moog and Lynn Morris and Saladin Osmanov and Victoria Polonis and Quentin Sattentau and Hanneke Schuitemaker and Ruengpung Sutthent and Terri Wrin and Gabriella Scarlatti",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0004505",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "2",

}

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 -