Assessing SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies after BNT162b2 Vaccination and Their Correlation with SARS-CoV-2 IgG Anti-S1, Anti-RBD and Anti-S2 Serological Titers

The humoral response through neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) is a key component of the immune response to COVID-19. However, the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), the gold standard for determining NAbs, is technically demanding, time-consuming and requires BSL-3 conditions. Correlating the NAbs and total antibodies levels, assessed by generalized and automated serological tests, is crucial. Through a commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), we aimed to evaluate the production of SARS-CoV-2 NAbs in a set of vaccinated healthcare workers and to correlate these NAbs with the SARS-CoV-2 IgG anti-S1, anti-RBD and anti-S2 serological titers. We found that 6 months after vaccination, only 74% maintain NAbs for the Wuhan strain/UK variant (V1) and 47% maintain NAbs for the South African and Brazil variants (V2). Through Spearman's correlation, we found the following correlations between the percentage of inhibition of NAbs and the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) and BioPlex 2200 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Panel (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) immunoassays: rho = 0.87 (V1) and rho = 0.73 (V2) for anti-S1 assessed by Abbott assay; rho = 0.77 (V1) and rho = 0.72 (V2) for anti-S1, rho = 0.88 (V1) and rho = 0.82 (V2) for anti-RBD, and rho = 0.68 (V1) and rho = 0.60 (V2) for anti-S2 assessed by BioPlex assay (p < 0.001 for all). In conclusion, we found a strong correlation between this fast, user-friendly, mobile and bio-safe sVNT and the serological immunoassays.

COVID-19 in-vitro Diagnostics: State-of-the-Art and Challenges for Rapid, Scalable, and High-Accuracy Screening

The world continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The highly contagious nature of this respiratory disease challenges advanced viral diagnostic technologies for rapid, scalable, affordable, and high accuracy testing. Molecular assays have been the gold standard for direct detection of the presence of the viral RNA in suspected individuals, while immunoassays have been used in the surveillance of individuals by detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Unlike molecular testing, immunoassays are indirect testing of the viral infection. More than 140 diagnostic assays have been developed as of this date and have received the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA). Given the differences in assasy format and/or design as well as the lack of rigorous verification studies, the performance and accuracy of these testing modalities remain unclear. In this review, we aim to carefully examine commercialized and FDA approved molecular-based and serology-based diagnostic assays, analyze their performance characteristics and shed the light on their utility and limitations in dealing with the COVID-19 global public health crisis.