Search

Abstract In the post-COVID-19 era, stakeholders, including policymakers, funders, and the public, are increasingly seeking for a cross-sectoral systems-based approach to health risks extending beyond conventional measures. Anchored on three health pillars -human, animal, and environmental- One Health offers a promising framework to effectively address this demand. While some nations have already implemented national One Health strategic plans, European countries, in general, are lagging behind the global agenda. On 22 February 2024, an initiative was launched in Austria toward addressing this gap, bringing together multiple sectors and disciplines, marking the initial step in creating a national One Health network. The workshop emphasized the importance of enhancing One Health education and addressed key topics, such as incorporating the environmental pillar of One Health as well as socio-economic and cultural drivers to further our understanding of outbreaks, and establishing trusted communication channels, including data sharing, between disciplines and sectors. Identified challenges encompassed the need for more funding of transdisciplinary research. Opportunities for advancement include initiating local One Health projects and showcasing their positive impacts. Moving forward, efforts will focus on establishing a mature and globally connected One Health framework in Austria and supporting the integration of One Health aspects into education curricula, research programs, and policies.

Background: Approximately 10–20% of subjects vaccinated with HBsAg-based hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccines are non-responders. BM32 is a recombinant grass pollen allergy vaccine containing the HBV-derived preS surface antigen as an immunological carrier protein. PreS includes the binding site of HBV to its receptor on hepatocytes. We investigated whether immunological non-responsiveness to HBV after repeated HBsAg-based vaccinations could be overcome by immunization with VVX001 (i.e., alum-adsorbed BM325, a component of BM32). Methods: A subject failing to develop protective HBV-specific immunity after HBsAg-based vaccination received five monthly injections of 20 µg VVX001. PreS-specific antibody responses were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and micro-array technology. Serum reactivity to subviral particles of different HBV genotypes was determined by sandwich ELISA. PreS-specific T cell responses were monitored by carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester (CFSE) staining and subsequent flow cytometry. HBV neutralization was assessed using cultured HBV-infected HepG2 cells. Results: Vaccination with VVX001 induced a strong and sustained preS-specific antibody response composed mainly of the IgG1 subclass. PreS-specific IgG antibodies were primarily directed to the N-terminal part of preS containing the sodium taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide (NTCP) attachment site. IgG reactivity to subviral particles as well as to the N-terminal preS-derived peptides was comparable for HBV genotypes A–H. A pronounced reactivity of CD3+CD4+ lymphocytes specific for preS after the complete injection course remaining up to one year after the last injection was found. Maximal HBV neutralization (98.4%) in vitro was achieved 1 month after the last injection, which correlated with the maximal IgG reactivity to the N-terminal part of preS. Conclusions: Our data suggest that VVX001 may be used as a preventive vaccination against HBV even in non-responders to HBsAg-based HBV vaccines.

While neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) induced by monovalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccinations are primarily directed against the wildtype (WT), subsequent exposure to the Omicron variants may increase the breadth of the antibodies’ cross-neutralizing activity. Here, we analyzed the impact of an Omicron breakthrough infection (BTI) or a fourth monovalent mRNA vaccination on nAb profiles in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH). Using a multivariant surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), we quantified nAbs in 36 three-times vaccinated PLWH, of whom 9 acquired a serologically confirmed Omicron BTI, 8 received a fourth vaccine dose, and 19 were neither infected nor additionally vaccinated. While nAbs against WT and Delta increased after the BTI and a fourth vaccination, a significant increase against BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 was only observed after the BTI. However, there was no significant difference in nAb concentrations between the samples obtained after the BTI and fourth vaccination. In contrast, nAb levels were significantly lower in PLWH, who were neither infected nor additionally vaccinated after three vaccinations. Thus, our study demonstrates the suitability of a multivariant sVNT to assess hybrid humoral immunity after Omicron BTIs in PLWH vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

The capability of antibodies to neutralize different SARS-CoV-2 variants varies among individuals depending on the previous exposure to wild-type or Omicron-specific immunogens by mono- or bivalent vaccinations or infections. Such profiles of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) usually have to be assessed via laborious live-virus neutralization tests (NTs). We therefore analyzed whether a novel multivariant surrogate-virus neutralization test (sVNT) (adapted from a commercial microarray) that quantifies the antibody-mediated inhibition between the receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and variant-specific receptor-binding domains (RBDs) can assess the neutralizing activity against the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, and Delta Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 subvariants after a booster with Omicron-adapted bivalent vaccines in a manner similar to live-virus NTs. Indeed, by using the live-virus NTs as a reference, we found a significant correlation between the variant-specific NT titers and levels of ACE2-RBD binding inhibition (p < 0.0001, r ≤ 0.78 respectively). Furthermore, the sVNTs identified higher inhibition values against BA.5 and BA.1 in individuals vaccinated with Omicron-adapted vaccines than in those with monovalent wild-type vaccines. Our data thus demonstrate the ability of sVNTs to detect variant-specific nAbs following a booster with bivalent vaccines.

ABSTRACT Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays’ quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

ABSTRACT The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is characterized by substantial changes in the antigenic structure of the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, antibodies induced by primary Omicron infection lack neutralizing activity against earlier variants. In this study, we analyzed whether these antigenic changes impact the sensitivity of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Sera from 37 unvaccinated, convalescent individuals after putative primary Omicron infection were tested with a panel of 20 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. As controls, we used samples from 43 individuals after primary infection with the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral wild-type strain. In addition, variant-specific live-virus neutralization assays were used as a reference for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the samples. Notably, in Omicron convalescents, there was a statistically significant reduction in the sensitivity of all antibody assays containing S or its receptor-binding-domain (RBD) as antigens. Furthermore, antibody levels quantified by these assays displayed a weaker correlation with Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers than with those against the wild type. In contrast, the sensitivity of nucleocapsid-protein-specific immunoassays was similar in wild-type and Omicron-infected subjects. In summary, the antigenic changes in the Omicron S lead to reduced immunoreactivity in the current commercial S- and RBD-specific antibody assays, impairing their diagnostic performance. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrates that the antigenic changes of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant affect test results from commercial Spike- and RBD-specific antibody assays, significantly diminishing their sensitivities and diagnostic abilities to assess neutralizing antibodies.

Primary infection with the Omicron variant of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be serologically identified with distinct profiles of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), as indicated by high titers against the Omicron variant and low titers against the ancestral wild-type (WT). Here, we evaluated whether a novel surrogate virus neutralization assay (sVNT) that simultaneously quantifies the binding inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to the proteins of the WT- and Omicron-specific receptor-binding domains (RBDs) can identify nAb profiles after primary Omicron infection with accuracy similar to that of variant-specific live-virus neutralization tests (NTs). Therefore, we comparatively tested 205 samples from individuals after primary infection with the Omicron variant and the WT, and vaccinated subjects with or without Omicron breakthrough infections. Indeed, variant-specific RBD-ACE2 binding inhibition levels significantly correlated with respective NT titers (p < 0.0001, Spearman’s r = 0.92 and r = 0.80 for WT and Omicron, respectively). In addition, samples from individuals after primary Omicron infection were securely identified with the sVNT according to their distinctive nAb profiles (area under the curve = 0.99; sensitivity: 97.2%; specificity: 97.84%). Thus, when laborious live-virus NTs are not feasible, the novel sVNT we evaluated in this study may serve as an acceptable substitute for the serological identification of individuals with primary Omicron infection.