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

dc.contributor.authorEva Maria Fenyöen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlan Heathen_US
dc.contributor.authorStefania Dispinserien_US
dc.contributor.authorHarvey Holmesen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaolo Lussoen_US
dc.contributor.authorSusan Zolla-Pazneren_US
dc.contributor.authorHelen Donnersen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeo Heyndrickxen_US
dc.contributor.authorJose Alcamien_US
dc.contributor.authorVera Bongertzen_US
dc.contributor.authorChristian Jassoyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMauro Malnatien_US
dc.contributor.authorDavid Montefiorien_US
dc.contributor.authorChristiane Moogen_US
dc.contributor.authorLynn Morrisen_US
dc.contributor.authorSaladin Osmanoven_US
dc.contributor.authorVictoria Polonisen_US
dc.contributor.authorQuentin Sattentauen_US
dc.contributor.authorHanneke Schuitemakeren_US
dc.contributor.authorRuengpung Sutthenten_US
dc.contributor.authorTerri Wrinen_US
dc.contributor.authorGabriella Scarlattien_US
dc.contributor.otherInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIen_US
dc.contributor.otherFundação Oswaldoen_US
dc.contributor.otherIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherPrins Leopold Instituut voor Tropische Geneeskundeen_US
dc.contributor.otherLunds Universiteten_US
dc.contributor.otherNational Institute for Biological Standards and Controlen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Leipzigen_US
dc.contributor.otherDuke University School of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversite de Strasbourgen_US
dc.contributor.otherNational Institute for Communicable Diseasesen_US
dc.contributor.otherOrganisation Mondiale de la Santeen_US
dc.contributor.otherHJFen_US
dc.contributor.otherSir William Dunn School of Pathologyen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Amsterdamen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMonogram Biosciencesen_US
dc.contributor.otherNYU School of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseasesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-13T06:19:39Z
dc.date.available2018-09-13T06:19:39Z
dc.date.issued2009-02-20en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. © 2009 Fenyö et al.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPLoS ONE. Vol.4, No.2 (2009)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0004505en_US
dc.identifier.issn19326203en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84887212581en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/27053
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84887212581&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectAgricultural and Biological Sciencesen_US
dc.subjectBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biologyen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleInternational network for comparison of HIV neutralization assays: The NeutNet reporten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84887212581&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections