Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

 Authors:Walker et al. 

Journal/ Pre-Print:BioRxiv 

Tags: Immunology/Immunity, Clinical/ Diagnostics, Vaccines, Virology 

Research Highlights

  1. Developed a competitive ELISA to test for antibodies which inhibit SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD interaction with ACE2, which has the potential to test for vaccine efficacy. 

  1. In mice, antibodies had greater ACE2 inhibition for S1+S2 compared to only S1 for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.  

Summary

The authors tested a competitive ELISA assay with bound SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with competition between ACE2 and purified IgG or sera from vaccinated animal models (mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, rhesus macaques) and Covid-19 patients. The animals were vaccinated with the INO-4800 vaccine, and naive animals (mock saline vaccination) and Day 0 sera were used as negative controls. Healthy human pre-pandemic samples were used as a negative control. There was no blinding used in the study. 

Impact for SARS-CoV2/COVID19 research efforts  

Develop diagnostic tools for SARS-CoV2/COVID19 

Others: Also suggests tool could be used to test efficacy of the vaccines 

Study Type  

  • In vitro study 

  • In vivo study (e.g. mouse, NHP) 

Strengths and limitations of the paper 

Novelty:New tool to detect antibodies from sera which inhibit RBD-ACE2 interaction of SARS-CoV-2 

Standing in the field:Another antibody assay, ELISA-based 

Appropriate statistics:Some statistics, but lacking and poorly explained 

Viral model used:SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1+S2) and S1, SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus 

Translatability:Might be useful as an antibody test, including for vaccine efficacy investigation 

Main limitations: 

  • No blinding of samples before experiments, and previous vaccine study in animal models which was referenced also had no blinding. 

  • No descriptions of repeats, or mention of duplicates or triplicates for ELISAs 

  • Low numbers of animals for each test 

  • Barely anything done with SPR assay - did not use purified IgG or sera to validate assay 

  • No rationale for the steps taken in the study and unclear descriptions and figures 

  • No comparison between their competitive ELISA and a sandwich ELISA to show sera/purified IgG/ACE2 binding to SARS-CoV-2 RBD, matrix effects, and quantification.