Blockade of checkpoint ILT3/LILRB4/gp49B binding to fibronectin ameliorates autoimmune disease in BXSB/Yaa mice.

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is the basis for virtually all cellular processes and is also related to tumor metastasis. Fibronectin (FN), a major ECM macromolecule expressed by different cell types and also present in plasma, consists of multiple functional modules that bind to ECM-associated, plasma, and cell-surface proteins such as integrins and FN itself, thus ensuring its cell-adhesive and modulatory role. Here we show that FN constitutes an immune checkpoint. Thus, FN was identified as a physiological ligand for a tumor/leukemia/lymphoma- as well as autoimmune-associated checkpoint, ILT3/LILRB4 (B4, CD85k). Human B4 and the murine ortholog, gp49B, bound FN with sub-micromolar affinities as assessed by bio-layer interferometry. The major B4-binding site in FN was located at the N-terminal 30-kDa module (FN30), which is apart from the major integrin-binding site present at the middle of the molecule. Blockade of B4-FN binding such as with B4 antibodies or a recombinant FN30-Fc fusion protein paradoxically ameliorated autoimmune disease in lupus-prone BXSB/Yaa mice. The unexpected nature of the B4-FN checkpoint in autoimmunity is discussed, referring to its potential role in tumor immunity.

Performance evaluation of the Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Quantitative IgG test by comparison with the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test and clinical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide campaigns of COVID-19 vaccinations, the pandemic is still a major medical and social problem. The Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific quantitative IgG (VITROS S-IgG) assay has been developed to assess neutralizing antibody (NT antibody) against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibodies. However, it has not been evaluated in Japan, where the total cases and death toll are lower than the rest of the world. METHODS: The clinical performance of VITROS S-IgG was evaluated by comparing with the NT antibody levels measured by the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test (sVNT). A total of 332 serum samples from 188 individuals were used. Of these, 219 samples were from 75 COVID-19 patients: 96 samples from 20 severe/critical cases (Group S), and 123 samples from 55 mild/moderate cases (Group M). The remaining 113 samples were from 113 healthcare workers who had received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: VITROS S-IgG showed good correlation with the cPass sVNT assay (Spearman rho = 0.91). Both VITROS S-IgG and cPass sVNT showed significantly higher plateau levels of antibodies in Group S compared to Group M. Regarding the humoral immune responses after BNT162b2 vaccination, individuals who were negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies had statistically lower titers of both S-IgG and sVNT compared to individuals with a history of COVID-19 and individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies without history of COVID-19. In individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies, S-IgG and sVNT titers were similar to individuals with a history of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Although the automated quantitative immunoassay VITROS S-IgG showed a reasonable correlation with sVNT antibodies, there is some discrepancy between Vitros S-IgG and cPass sVNT in milder cases. Thus, VITROS S-IgG can be a useful diagnostic tool in assessing the immune responses to vaccination and herd immunity. However, careful analysis is necessary to interpret the results.

Assessment of antibody dynamics and neutralizing activity using serological assay after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

The COVID-19 antibody test was developed to investigate the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, we examined whether S antibody titers measured using the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (S-IgG), a high-throughput test method, reflects the neutralizing capacity acquired after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. To assess the antibody dynamics and neutralizing potency, we utilized a total of 457 serum samples from 253 individuals: 325 samples from 128 COVID-19 patients including 136 samples from 29 severe/critical cases (Group S), 155 samples from 71 mild/moderate cases (Group M), and 132 samples from 132 health care workers (HCWs) who have received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccinations. The authentic virus neutralization assay, the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test (sVNT), and the Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (N-IgG) have been performed along with the S-IgG. The S-IgG correlated well with the neutralizing activity detected by the authentic virus neutralization assay (0.8904. of Spearman's rho value, p < 0.0001) and sVNT (0.9206. of Spearman's rho value, p < 0.0001). However, 4 samples (2.3%) of S-IgG and 8 samples (4.5%) of sVNT were inconsistent with negative results for neutralizing activity of the authentic virus neutralization assay. The kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and anti-S IgG in severe cases were faster than the mild cases. All the HCWs elicited anti-S IgG titer after the second vaccination. However, the HCWs with history of COVID-19 or positive N-IgG elicited higher anti-S IgG titers than those who did not have it previously. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict the risk of breakthrough infection from anti-S IgG or sVNT antibody titers in HCWs after the second vaccination. Our data shows that the use of anti-S IgG titers as direct quantitative markers of neutralizing capacity is limited. Thus, antibody tests should be carefully interpreted when used as serological markers for diagnosis, treatment, and prophylaxis of COVID-19.

Activation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody is slower than elevation of spike-specific IgG, IgM, and nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies.

COVID-19 antibody testing has been developed to investigate humoral immune response in SARS-CoV-2 infection. To assess the serological dynamics and neutralizing potency following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we investigated the neutralizing (NT) antibody, anti-spike, and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies responses using a total of 168 samples obtained from 68 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Antibodies were measured using an authentic virus neutralization assay, the high-throughput laboratory measurements of the Abbott Alinity quantitative anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (S-IgG), semiquantitative anti-spike IgM (S-IgM), and anti-nucleocapsid IgG (N-IgG) assays. The quantitative measurement of S-IgG antibodies was well correlated with the neutralizing activity detected by the neutralization assay (r = 0.8943, p < 0.0001). However, the kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 NT antibody in severe cases were slower than that of anti-S and anti-N specific antibodies. These findings indicate a limitation of using the S-IgG antibody titer, detected by the chemiluminescent immunoassay, as a direct quantitative marker of neutralizing activity capacity. Antibody testing should be carefully interpreted when utilized as a marker for serological responses to facilitate diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic interventions.