Reconciliation of titer differences between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays

ABSTRACT SARS-CoV-2 antibody neutralization is a correlate of protection for COVID-19 and has been used to guide public health decisions. However, there is no standard neutralization assay, and absolute titers differ between assays. To investigate mechanisms causing these absolute titer differences, we compared 28 samples with three assays: a live virus cytopathic effect (CPE)-based microneutralization assay, a live virus focus reduction (immunospot, IS) assay, and a pseudotyped virus luciferase expression reduction (pseudovirus, PV) assay. We found significant correlations between all assays (ρ > 0.95 and P < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons), but also significant differences in absolute titers by assay (paired t -tests P < 0.001). IS and PV assays that assess neutralization as the titer required to reduce foci/luminescence by 50% had the smallest difference, with 1.2-fold higher IS assay titers (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.2–1.2). CPE assay titers were 5.5-fold lower (95% CI: 5.4–5.5) than in the IS assay. We show that these differences can be explained (i) by accounting for the size of inoculum being neutralized (half the infectious virions in the IS and PV assays, “per virion,” and the entire inoculum half the time in the CPE assay, “per well”) and (ii) by removing serum during the 5-day culture in the CPE assay (so serum can only neutralize the inoculum, rather than acting on the inoculum and slowing viral growth during culture). These findings highlight areas for more precise and harmonized terminology and particular assay elements that must be considered in efforts to harmonize neutralization assays. IMPORTANCE Protection against COVID-19 is related to how well serum antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2. This neutralization can be assessed using different assays, which often provide significantly different estimates. To better understand why assay results vary, we compared three commonly used types of neutralization assay. We found both strong correlations and significant differences in measured neutralization between the different assays. Differences in the type of virus (live SARS-CoV-2 virus compared to a pseudotyped virus with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein), how long cells, virus, and antibody were allowed to interact, and whether neutralization of a batch of virions (“per well” neutralization) or individual infectious virions (“per virion”) was measured, all impacted virus neutralization. Understanding which factors have the largest impact on the differences between neutralization assays is an important first step toward harmonization of neutralization assays across the field.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Virology
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00823-26
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reconciliation of titer differences between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays

Miles P. Davenport, Steffen S. Docken, David S. Khoury, Eva Stadler et al.
Journal of Virology
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
article

Reconciliation of titer differences between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays

Miles P. Davenport, Steffen S. Docken, David S. Khoury, Eva Stadler, Kanta Subbarao, Francesca L. Mordant, Matthew Gartner
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT SARS-CoV-2 antibody neutralization is a correlate of protection for COVID-19 and has been used to guide public health decisions. However, there is no standard neutralization assay, and absolute titers differ between assays. To investigate mechanisms causing these absolute titer differences, we compared 28 samples with three assays: a live virus cytopathic effect (CPE)-based microneutralization assay, a live virus focus reduction (immunospot, IS) assay, and a pseudotyped virus luciferase expression reduction (pseudovirus, PV) assay. We found significant correlations between all assays (ρ > 0.95 and P < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons), but also significant differences in absolute titers by assay (paired t -tests P < 0.001). IS and PV assays that assess neutralization as the titer required to reduce foci/luminescence by 50% had the smallest difference, with 1.2-fold higher IS assay titers (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.2–1.2). CPE assay titers were 5.5-fold lower (95% CI: 5.4–5.5) than in the IS assay. We show that these differences can be explained (i) by accounting for the size of inoculum being neutralized (half the infectious virions in the IS and PV assays, “per virion,” and the entire inoculum half the time in the CPE assay, “per well”) and (ii) by removing serum during the 5-day culture in the CPE assay (so serum can only neutralize the inoculum, rather than acting on the inoculum and slowing viral growth during culture). These findings highlight areas for more precise and harmonized terminology and particular assay elements that must be considered in efforts to harmonize neutralization assays. IMPORTANCE Protection against COVID-19 is related to how well serum antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2. This neutralization can be assessed using different assays, which often provide significantly different estimates. To better understand why assay results vary, we compared three commonly used types of neutralization assay. We found both strong correlations and significant differences in measured neutralization between the different assays. Differences in the type of virus (live SARS-CoV-2 virus compared to a pseudotyped virus with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein), how long cells, virus, and antibody were allowed to interact, and whether neutralization of a batch of virions (“per well” neutralization) or individual infectious virions (“per virion”) was measured, all impacted virus neutralization. Understanding which factors have the largest impact on the differences between neutralization assays is an important first step toward harmonization of neutralization assays across the field.

Journal of Virology
Systems Analytics (United States) (US), Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory (AU), Peter Doherty Institute (AU)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, University of Rochester, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.