Search

Background: Neutralizing antibodies provide markers for vaccine-induced protective immunity in many viral infections. By analogy, HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies induced by immunization may well predict vaccine effectiveness. Assessment of neutralizing antibodies is therefore of primary importance, but is hampered by the fact that we do not know which assay(s) can provide measures of protective immunity. An international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 different laboratories previously compared different assays using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and soluble CD4 (Phase I study). Methods: In the present study (Phase II), polyclonal reagents were evaluated by 13 laboratories. Each laboratory evaluated nine plasmas against an 8 virus panel representing different genetic subtypes and phenotypes. TriMab, a mixture of three mAbs, was used as a positive control allowing comparison of the results with Phase I in a total of nine different assays. The assays used either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (Virus Infectivity Assays, VIA), or Env (gp160)-pseudotyped viruses (pseudoviruses, PSV) produced in HEK293T cells from molecular clones or from uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically engineered cell lines in either single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs including extra- or intra-cellular p24 antigen detection, luciferase, beta-galactosidase or green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene expression. Findings: Using TriMab, results of Phase I and Phase II were generally in agreement for six of the eight viruses tested and confirmed that the PSV assay is more sensitive than PBMC (p = 0.014). Comparisons with the polyclonal reagents showed that sensitivities were dependent on both virus and plasma. Conclusions: Here we further demonstrate clear differences in assay sensitivities that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. Consistent with the Phase I study, we recommend parallel use of PSV and VIA for vaccine evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) and neutralization are used to evaluate vaccines against influenza virus A (H5N1); however, poor standardization leads to interlaboratory variation of results. A candidate antibody standard (07/150) was prepared from pooled plasma of persons given clade 1 A/Vietnam/1194/2004 vaccine. To test human and sheep antiserum, 15 laboratories used HI and neutralization and reassortant A/Vietnam/1194/2004, A/turkey/Turkey/1/2005 (clade 2.2), and A/Anhui/1/2005 (clade 2.3.4) viruses. Interlaboratory variation was observed for both assays, but when titers were expressed relative to 07/150, overall percentage geometric coefficient of variation for A/Vietnam/1194/2004 was reduced from 125% to 61% for HI and from 183% to 81% for neutralization. Lack of reduced variability to clade 2 antigens suggested the need for clade-specific standards. Sheep antiserum as a standard did not reliably reduce variability. The World Health Organization has established 07/150 as an international standard for antibody to clade 1 subtype H5 and has an assigned potency of 1,000 IU/ampoule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 singleor 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ferritin standardisation is problematical due to the heterogeneity of ferritin isoforms and the antibodies used in its immunoassay, and the lack of a reference measurement procedure. We investigated the performance of the 1st (liver), 2nd (spleen) and 3rd (recombinant) International Standards (ISs) for ferritin in major assays. Methods: The ferritin in a serum pool ‘spiked’ with either the 2nd or 3rd IS for ferritin was measured by 52 laboratories using five automated methods and the recovery of the target values calculated. A smaller serum pool was ‘spiked’ with the 1st IS for a limited recovery exercise. The ferritin values of five serum samples were also measured and recalculated relative to the ISs. Results: Recoveries of each of the 2nd and 3rd ISs were 90%–110% for four of five methods; recoveries of the 1st IS were 104% and 111% for two of three methods claiming traceability to this IS. One method significantly over-recovered each of the IS (124%–155%). Recalculating the ferritin values of the serum samples relative to the IS reduced the overall inter-method agreement, largely because of the anomalous over-recovery of the IS by one method. Conclusions: The use of the 3rd IS to standardise assays will minimise assay drift due to manufacturers adopting a ‘harmonisation’ approach in which the calibration is adjusted to conform to overall mean values. Standardisation against the current IS also ensures compliance with the European Union In-Vitro Diagnostic Directive which requires traceability of assay calibrators to reference materials of a higher order. Assay drift may result in poor sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of iron status, and would require laboratories to continually re-evaluate reference intervals. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1450–7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Haemagglutination–inhibition (HI) and virus neutralisation (VN) assays are used to evaluate immunogenicity of pandemic H1N1 vaccines; however these bioassays are poorly standardised leading to inter-laboratory variation. A candidate International Standard (IS) for antibody to H1N1pdm virus (09/194) was prepared from pooled sera of subjects who had either recovered from H1N1pdm infection or who had been immunised with an adjuvanted subunit vaccine prepared from reassortant virus NYMC X-179A (derived from A/California/7/2009 virus). Ten laboratories from seven countries tested the candidate IS, 09/194 and a panel of human sera by HI and VN using the A/California/7/2009 virus (six laboratories) and/or the reassortant virus NYMC X-179A (ten laboratories). As expected, the inter-laboratory variability for HI and VN assay results was high. For results of antibody tests to NYMC X-179A, the % geometric coefficient of variation (%GCV) for 09/194 between laboratories was 83% for HI and 192% for VN. For tests of all sera, the median %GCV ranged from 95 to 345% for HI (80-fold variation) and 204 to 383% for VN (109-fold variation), but for the titres relative to 09/194 the median %GCV was much reduced (HI 34–231%; VN 44–214%). For tests of antibody to the A/California/7/2009 wild type virus there were similar reductions in %GCV when 09/194 was used. These results suggest that 09/194 will be of use to standardise assays of antibody to A/California/7/2009 vaccine and 09/194 has now been established by WHO as an IS for antibody to A/California/7/2009 with an assigned potency of 1300 IU per ml. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Current HPV vaccines and vaccine candidates are based on recombinant virus capsid proteins, so called virus-like particles (VLPs). Standardisation of assays for HPV capsid antibody will assist with epidemiology studies and future vaccine development. A World Health Organization international collaborative study was undertaken to assess the suitability of a freeze-dried serum, obtained from women naturally infected with HPV 16 and reactive against HPV 16 only, to serve as the International Standard for antibodies to HPV 16 in immunoassays and pseudovirion neutralisation assays. Eleven laboratories from nine countries participated in the collaborative study in which the candidate (NIBSC code 05/134) was assayed alongside samples from both vaccinees and naturally infected individuals. 05/134 had titres which were comparable to those obtained with serum from a naturally infected individual. Overall the variation between laboratories is similar to that observed in the previous study for samples from naturally infected individuals although slightly wider for sera from vaccinees. 05/134 has been established by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization as the 1st International Standard for antibodies to HPV 16, human serum, with an assigned potency of 5IUper ampoule. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Regulatory requirements to control the level of anti-D in intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) products with European and United States (US) licences are to be introduced. A reference preparation of IVIG containing anti-D at 0.0475 IU/ml and having a nominal titre of 8 using the proposed direct haemagglutination reference method was deemed suitable to define the anti-D limit. This preparation, code 02/228, and a negative control IVIG preparation, code 02/226, were established by the World Health Organization as International Reference Reagents (IRRs). As stocks of the IRRs are limited, new larger fill stocks of positive and negative reference preparations, codes 04/132 and 04/140, respectively, were produced. The results from an international collaborative study involving 16 laboratories showed that preparations 04/132 and 04/140 are indistinguishable from the corresponding IRRs 02/228 and 02/226, respectively, using the proposed direct haemagglutination reference method. Stocks of 04/132 and 04/140 have been shared with the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (re-coded as 23613 and 23614, respectively) and with the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the United States Food and Drug Administration (re-coded as CBER Lots 1B and 1N-b, respectively) for use as European and US Biological Reference Preparations, respectively. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]