Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.
Learn more at Review Commons
Reply to the reviewers
We are very grateful to the two referees for their constructive comments and suggestions which have helped improve the quality of our manuscript.
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **
Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):
Ribes et al developed a FACS-based serological assay to detect antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in various hosts. The authors described an assay that is more sensitive and quantitative, allowing the detection of anti-spike antibodies with just a few ul of blood, and highlighted the potential of the assay as an alternative to commercial ELISA-based assays against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Major concerns *
-
- On being quantitative analysis - the authors have used 20/130 reference serum from NIBSC as an example in figure 1. How does the RSS of the described assay compare/correlate with the Ab values in WHO standards? This should be included. *
Response: We thank the referee for this helpful suggestion, and have now included the information on the IgG BAU in the legend of figure 1, and alluded to the characterisation of the 20/130 by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (Mattiuzzo et al., 2020) on lines 410-414 in the main text of the manuscript
- On sensitivity and specificity - AUC profiles should be performed and included. *
Response: If the Jurkat-flow test was intended for clinical use, the precise determination
of the sensitivity and specificity of the test would indeed be absolutely essential. As was already mentioned at the end of the introduction, the Jurkat-S&R-flow test is only destined to be used by research laboratories, for research purposes. This has now also been clarified at the end of the abstract : “Whilst the Jurkat-flow test is ill-suited and not intended for clinical use ….”
As suggested by the referee, to establish the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test, it is indeed practical to use the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). A ROC curve is a plot of the true positive rate (Sensitivity) in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity) for different cut-off points of a parameter. Determining properly the sensitivity and specificity of a test thus requires large collections of samples which are known to be either certainly positive or certainly negative, which we did not have access to.
- Are there any cross-reactivity with the other spike proteins from other CoVs? If so, what is the level of cross-reactivity? *
Response: To assess cross-reactivity with other CoVs, we would have needed either Jurkat cells expressing the spike proteins from other CoVs, or sera with known reactivity against CoVs. Since we did not have access to such cells or sera, we were not in a position to address such a question.
- While the authors have showed that the flow-based assay has a more dynamic range, there is insufficient data showing that it is "more sensitive", as stated in the abstract. The authors should reflect this in the text. *
Response: In the abstract, we do not state that the Jurkat-S&R-flow test is more sensitive than the ELISA, but “at least as sensitive”. On the other hand, we state that it is more sensitive than the HAT test, which it clearly is since there are more than a dozen samples on figure 2 that were positive with either or both ELISA and Jurkat-S&R-flow but were negative by HAT.
Of note, we have recently described an improved protocol, called HAT-field, which significantly improves the sensitivity of HAT, albeit at the cost of decreased specificity (https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.14.22268980)
- Is trimer or monomer Spike expressed on the surface of the cells? *
Response: Several studies have shown that, when the spike protein is expressed in human cells after transfection or transduction, it is in its native trimeric form at the cells’ surface and can even cause fusion with cells expressing the ACE2 receptor. This has now been clarified in the introduction section.
- While there are significant advantages of the flow-based assay, the authors should discuss the limitations of a flow-based assay as a serological assay, especially for sero-surveillance and cohort studies. For instance, HTS application is usually limited for cell-based assays. In addition, while the assay is relatively cheap, it is worth nothing that the cytometer is an expensive equipment that not all laboratories have. *
Response: We bring the referee’s attention to the fact that those points are discussed at the end of the introduction (line 161-165) : “ Since the Jurkat-flow test calls for the use of both a flow cytometer and cells obtained by tissue culture, it is clearly not destined to be used broadly in a diagnostic context, but its simplicity, modularity, and performances both in terms of sensitivity and quantification capacities should prove very useful for research labs working on characterizing antibody responses directed against SARS-2, both in humans and animal models. “
*Minor concerns*:
-
- Figure 1 - text and numbers in the FACS plots are too small. Please adjust. In addition, for some of the FACS plots shown (eg. neg cont and serum 20/130), the population is right at the axis. Please pan the x-axis to allow better visualisation.
- Figure 3A - please label axis.
- Figure S2 - please label axis.
- In general, please check through all figures for axis labels and also adjust the front size. For most, the text is too small.
Response: Sizes of numbers and text increased, and axis labels added in all figures
Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):
As already discussed by the authors, there have already been quite a number of studies that have demonstrated the advantages of a flow-based assay for serological analysis for SARS-CoV-2. However, Ribes et al showed a new way to separate out alloreactivity from specific staining, which is important in reducing false positivity in serological assay. As more and more people receive their vaccination, there is a significant interest in immune-monitoring following vaccination. Given the more dynamic range of the flow-based assay, this is one good way to monitor antibody response. *
Expertise*: My research interest focuses on the study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses following infection or vaccination.
Reviewer #2* (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): **
In this paper, Joly and colleagues make use of a flow cytometry-based assay to measure in a reliable and sensitive manner the presence of IgG, IgA and IgM in blood samples from post-COVID human patients and also from laboratory (mouse and hamster) and domestic animals (dogs and cats). They find that the test is appropriate to detect the presence of humoral immunity in all species tested.
The manuscript is clearly written and the Figures are clearly presented. The experiments with rodente deliberately infected with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 shows (Fig. 3) that the method is reliable and able to clearly discriminate positive from negative sera. Interestingly, dogs and cats were sampled from households in which the owners had been found to have passed COVID-19 by PCR. Among this cohort of house animals they find more than 90% seroconversion for dogs and slightly less than 30% of clear seroconversion in cats.
We find however that the manuscript would benefit by establishing a clear cut-off value of "Specific Stain" for dogs and cats (Fig. 3). This could be implemented by including data from pre-COVID dog and cat sera or in its defect, sera from those species collected at households in which their owners were vaccinated and did not pass the infection. Another point of criticism that could be resolved is that the channels for flow cytometry in Figure 1 do not seem to be adequately compensated and there is evidence of some cross-contamination between FL1 and FL3. *
Responses: We thank the referee for bringing our attention to the fact that we had presented the data on sera from cats and dogs in a confusing manner, which led the referee to believe that the sets of samples presented were representative of the population of animals whose owner had tested positive for Covid-19. In fact, for this experiment, which was only ever intended as a preliminary proof of concept that the test could be adapted very simply to companion animals, we used sets of sera which we knew would contain approximately 50 % of positive and 50 % negative samples because they had previously been screened by sero-neutralisation (incidentally, a manuscript by Bessière et al., describing that work on sera from 131 cats and 156 dogs, has very recently been submitted for publication). To prevent possible confusions, we have now reworded the description of this proof of concept experiment, in the legend of figure 3, the text, and the methods section.
Regarding the question of a clear cut-off value, as when using human samples, we would suggest using a value of 40 for the instruments settings we used, corresponding to an RSS of 20 (i.e. 20 fold the value of the negative control). With such a value, it can be seen that one cat serum would be considered positive whilst showing no neutralising activity, but one dog serum which showed weak neutralising activity would be considered negative. If anything, this example highlights the difficulty in setting a precise cut off value for any biological test.
Regarding the question of inadequate compensation between channels 1 and 3, this is due to the fact that the Cellquest software does not allow for FL1/FL3 compensation, which is explained in the figure legend (see lines 208-210). We decided to simply draw the gates as they appear on figure 1 because attempts at post-acquisition compensation using the Flowjo software did not give satisfactory results. Incidentally, no compensation is required when samples are acquired on a Fortessa flow cytometer, where mCherry can be excited by a different laser (see figure S1) or if one uses the Jurkat-S&G-flow version of the test as in figure 3D for hamster sera (using Jurkat-GFP as negative control, and secondary antibodies conjugated to Alexa 488).
*Minor points*:
-Figure 1.- Please describe the y- and x-axis. Such as they are is difficult to find out.
Response: Done
- -It would be advisable to mention in Materials and Methods (page 22) how blood was collected from cats and dogs. *
Response: We thank the referee for highlighting this, and have now provided the information in the relevant method section.
- -Line 856, page 22, "ad libidum" should be "ad libitum" *
Response: We thank the referee for spotting this typo, which has been corrected
- Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):
This is another step in the implementation of flow cytometry tests, instead of ELISA or CLIA serological tests based on the use of recombinant proteins, as a more sensitive and reliable method. The description of the high frequency of human-domestic animal transfer of SARS-CoV-2 will also add to the idea that it is humans who transmit the virus to those animals. *
