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 three referees for their constructive comments and suggestions which have helped improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):
In the publication HAT-field: a very cheap, robust and quantitative point-of-care serological test for Covid-19 by Joly and Ribes the authors describe an adaption and an improved protocol to their previously published haemagglutination based test to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in patient blood (Towsend et al., 2021). In detail, they analyzed the effect of several adaptions including buffer optimization, plate coating, usage of patient whole blood instead of washed RBCs and plasma. Additionally they tested different temperatures and stability of the reagents, namely the nanobody-RBD construct IH4-RBD. For validation they compared their optimized HAT-field assay with Jurkat-S&R as a FACS-based assay.
Major comments:
Introduction: This section is rather short and could benefit from a broader overview of currently established methods and assays to detect appropriate immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. The author are advised to summarize the current literature in the field more comprehensively and not only focus on their own work.
*Response*: Hundreds of different tests to monitor immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 have been described to date, and the literature on these various tests is vast, with new articles coming out almost on a daily basis. We would not feel either that the introduction of our rather technical paper would benefit from being lengthened by such a review of the current literature, or even competent to carry out such a summary. Following the referee’s suggestion, we have, however, introduced a new sentence and given three references providing relatively recent overviews on the subject of immune-monitoring.
Cross-reactivity with IH4-RBD.
In Figure 6, the authors highlight the samples in red and orange that showed cross-reactivity with IH4-RBD. In their discussion, however, the authors state that only 2 of 60 (3%) were cross-reactive. In making this statement, they ignore the proportion of cross-reactive samples that were also positive in the Jurkat S&R assay. Therefore, the authors should acknowledge in the discussion that the actual number of cross-reactive samples was higher.
*Response*: The statement in the discussion about 2 cross reactive samples out of 60 concerns the results obtained after an incubation of one hour under normal gravity, and not the two red dots in each of the three graphs of figure 6, which correspond to the two negative samples which gave false-positive results in HAT plasma titrations after spinning (Figure 6C), for which we correctly state in the discussion that 12 samples showed cross-reactivity on IH4 alone. The data presented in Figure 6B corresponds to HAT-field after spinning, for which we correctly state in the discussion that 5 out of 60 showed cross-reactivity (4 orange dots + 1 red dot, the second red dot having a score of 0, in accordance with the fact that this sample showed no cross reaction on IH4 alone in HAT-field after spinning).
To try to prevent this possible confusion, we have now clarified what data we are referring to at the start of that paragraph in the discussion.
Quantitative Assay.
Since the HAT assay does not allow determination of the absolute number of antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2 in the blood samples, the authors should refrain from claiming that the HAT-field is a quantitative assay.
*Response*: Since immune sera are inherently polyclonal, they contain a multitude of different types of antibodies of different affinities and avidities, and we are not aware of any technique that allows to determine the “absolute number” of antibodies directed against a given antigen in such samples.
For many serological tests, including ELISA and the initial protocol of HAT, serum or plasma titrations are used as a means to obtain what is widely considered as a quantitative evaluation of the amounts of antibodies in blood samples. Even FACS-based assays such as the Jurkat-S&R-flow test we have used, are commonly considered as quantitative but those only provide relative results and not absolute numbers.
We perceive that the close correlations we find between the results of the HAT-field protocol and those of the Jurkat-S&R-flow test as well as with serum titrations using the standard HAT protocol warrants considering the results of HAT-field as being as quantitative as those obtained with all those other tests.
Morphological read out
For field application, the morphological description of the observed deposits ("teardrop" vs. "button") could be problematic and might lead to bias depending on the user. Thus, the authors should provide a clearer description for phenotype classification.
*Response*: We have now introduced a specific paragraph detailing how to score HAT assays in the Methods section, as well as a new figure providing a graphic description of positive, partial and negative RBCs deposits.
Minor comments:
Title: the authors should remove "very"
*Response*: We have now removed the word ‘very’ from the title, and thank the referee for this helpful suggestion.
By the way: What are the costs of IH4-RBD for a 96 well plate? Who will produce this reagent? Is the sequence of the IH4 fully disclosed?
*Response*: As specified in our original paper (see Townsend et al. 2021), the plasmid coding for the IH4-RBD is available upon request from Alain Townsend (Oxford, UK). Furthermore, his laboratory funded the production of 1 gram of the IH4-RBD reagent by a commercial company, and professor Townsend has been graciously sending aliquots of 1 mg of this reagent, which suffice for several thousand tests, to all the laboratories that have requested it from him.
In its initial format, HAT only required 100 ng of IH4-RBD per well, corresponding to a cost of 0.0027 £ per well. For the HAT-field protocol, 5 times more reagent is needed, thus bringing the cost of the reagent to 1.5 cts per test, to which one would have to add a similar cost for the IH4-reagent alone. This would thus bring the cost of the two reagents to approximately 3 cts, which is still lower than the price of any of the cheap disposable plasticware necessary for the test (lancet, pipet, plastic tube and portion of a plate).
The sequence of the IH4 nanobody is indeed fully disclosed (see figure 1 of Townsend et al. 2021), and has actually been protected by a patent ( US9879090B2 ). Whilst IH4 can be used freely for research purposes, licensing rights would have to be taken into consideration by any health authority wishing to use the technique broadly, or for any commercial distribution.
The usage of the CR3022 as positive control for neutralizing antibodies should be reconsidered since this antibody does not confer viral neutralization. Other well describe antibodies blocking the ACE2:RBD interface might be better suited.
*Response*: CR3022 was the one that we had at our disposal, but other mAbs can certainly be used instead of as positive controls, and this is actually indicated in the detailed HAT-field protocol provided. Since the use of a positive control is only to ensure that the IH4-RBD has not been degraded and works as well as expected, and that any negative samples are not due to a very rare glycophorin mutation that could prevent IH4 from binding to it at the surface of RBCs, we are not sure why using a mAb with neutralizing activity would necessarily be better than the CR3022 mAb.
Figure 2: Please state the concentration of IH4-RBD used. As stated in the figure legends for Figure 2 B, the authors should show the result all 4 replicates (incl. SD)
*Response*: The concentration of IH4-RBD was 1 mg/ml, i.e. the normal concentration for standard HAT tests. This was already indicated in the Methods section, but has now been added to the legend of Figure 2.
*Whilst 4 experiments were indeed carried out, which all gave similar results, i.e. showed that using PBS-N3 or PBN did not hinder HAT performance, but could instead result in a slight increase in HAT sensitivity, those various experiments were not all exact replicates of the experiment shown on figure 2. Furthermore, performing of those various experiments was spread over a period of over a year, using different reagents, thus precluding numerical comparisons between the various results. We have clarified this issue by rewording the final statement to “*Comparable results were obtained in four similar experiments.”
Figure 3: Although the authors showed stability of IH4-RBD at 2 µg/ml they do not provide data for the stabilities at higher dilutions. As the authors suggest to predistribute the IH4-RBD in plates they should at least discuss this issue.
We thank the referee for raising this valid point, which has now been discussed in the paragraph entitled “Practical considerations for performing HAT assays” in the Methods section: “One aspect that will have to be considered for the design and use of such individual strips of wells will be to ensure that, upon storage, the various dilutions of IH4-RBD are as stable in such strips as the working stocks of IH4-RBD (2 mg/ml) tested in Figure 3.”
Figure 6/Supplementary Figure 1 and 3
The presentation of the data is not accurate, as many of the points (samples) are obviously identically positioned in the graph. The authors should choose a different representation of their data. E.g. they could adjust the size of the points to the number of overlapping samples.
*Response*: We thank the referee for raising this issue, which was also pointed to by referee #2. This apparent inaccuracy is due to the fact that, on these plots, the scales for both x and Y axes used discrete values, which indeed results in multiple points overlapping on top of one another. This was resolved by adding numbers next to the positions where several dots overlapped
Wording / text length
In the current manuscript the text is very long. Thus, the authors should shorten it to report the essential findings more appropriately. Additionally they should check for correct English wording.
*Response*: We thank the referee for this remark, which helped us realize that the excessive length of the manuscript was mostly due to an extensive discussion of highly technical and practical points. The corresponding paragraphs were indeed out of place in the general discussion, and have not been deleted but have been moved to the Methods section since we feel that they contain very important information for people who would actually start to performing HAT assays.
Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):
In summary, the authors describe the HAT-field test as a simple PoC test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients. Because of its ease of use and robustness, the test appears to be particularly well suited for use in countries with underdeveloped health care or limited testing facilities, as also reported previously. The value of this manuscript lies mainly in the detailed description of the protocol and its validation. In this context, the adaptations described are certainly useful and helpful from a practical point of view, but do not provide significant new scientific insights. In light of these considerations, we recommend that this work be submitted to an appropriate journal specializing in the publication of such methods
Expertise
The reviewers have established and published different serological assays to monitor immune responses against SARS-CoV-2
Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):
In this paper, the authors developed a feasible protocol for an affordable point-of-care serological test for SARS-CoV-2. This method was adapted from the HAT plasma titration test that the authors previously published. Specifically, the test utilizes a 96-well plate pre-coated with the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein fusing to a red blood cell targeting nanobody (IH4). By adding microliters amount of the blood or plasma samples to the plate, it allows the detection of antibodies against RBD by measuring the level of hemagglutination. In the current upgraded protocol (so called HAT-field), the authors made major modifications including optimizations of buffer and experimental protocol and the use of pre-titrated IH4-RBD on the plate, which collectively helped to lower the sample consumptions, improved the stability and the sensitivity of detection, and made the test more user-friendly under non-clinical settings.
Major comments:
My major concerns are related to the robustness and quantitative capability of this approach. Specifically:
It seems that multiple variables may impact the results. These include volume of droplets, the presence/absence of serum IH4 or BSA cross-reactive antibodies, and the amount (%) of red blood cells which may vary substantially among samples. Could you find a way to normalize the results (e.g., the discrepancy shown in Figure 6) instead of only leaving them as false-positives or false-negative?
*Response*: Regarding the volume of the droplets, in other words, the amount of blood collected and used in an assay, two sentences in the manuscript underline the fact that this is not a critical variable:
In the Results section “the precise volume of blood collected is not critical; it may vary by as much as 30% with no detectable influence on the results.”
In the discussion: “On this subject, we have found that increasing the amount of whole blood per well (in other words using blood that is less dilute) has very little influence over the HAT-field results, and, if anything, adding more blood can sometimes reduce the sensitivity, albeit never by more than 1 dilution.”
Consequently the % of RBCs in samples seem unlikely to influence the HAT-field scores significantly. This is supported by the fact that, although men tend to have higher hematocrits than women, we have not noticed any detectable difference between men and women in the correlation of the HAT-field scores with those of the Jurkat-S&R-flow test.
We are not sure that we fully understand what discrepancy shown in Figure 6 the referee is pointing to, but if it is about the increase in the number of samples found to be cross reacting on IH4 alone when the sensitivity increases, in the discussion, we propose to perform tests using titrations of the IH4 nanobody alone simultaneously to using the IH4-RBD reagent, so as to minimize the number of samples that would be identified as false positives if only one concentration of IH4 alone was used as negative control. Comparing the titers obtained with IH4-RBD and IH4 alone will then provide some level of normalization for the samples cross reacting on IH4. As for the hypothetical presence of antibodies cross reacting on BSA alluded to by the referee, since such antibodies would not bind to RBCs, we do not think they would affect the HAT results.
Second, the score of the HAT-field ranges from 0 - 8. However, based on the current manuscript, it is not clear how the scoring and scaling works. How is the noise (non-specific antibody signal) defined here?
*Response*: We have now introduced a specific paragraph and a new figure detailing how to score HAT assays in the Methods section.
In addition, it is unclear how to translate the HAT-field score into a meaningful measure of protection by serum antibodies.
*Response*: Documenting the correlation between HAT-field scores and levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections and/or Covid-19 severity would indeed be extremely interesting. This would, however, require setting up a large scale clinical trial carried out over several months. This type of work could only be carried out by a large consortium including clinicians or even preferably a national health agency. This was, however, far beyond the reach of this initial project, which was based on the work of a single person on a shoestring budget.
Can you provide more evidence to demonstrate that the test is quantitative? For example, performing additional orthogonal experiments to better validate the scoring and generate a correlation function?
*Response*: Inasmuch as it would have been very interesting to perform additional serological tests from commercial sources on the samples of our cohort, such tests are all very expensive (e.g. ca. 500 € for one ELISA plate). This was in fact the main reason for developing the Jurkat-S&R-flow test in the first place, since it is much cheaper, more modular, and at least as sensitive as ELISA (see Maurel Ribes et al. 2021). The funds for this whole project came from a single 15 k€ grant obtained from the ANR, and we simply did not have access to the funds, or to the human resources to carry out such experiments based on commercial serological tests.
Minor comments:
Figure 6: are all results included? To me, it does not seem that all 60 samples data were included in the plot.
*Response*: We thank the referee for raising this issue, which was also pointed to by referee #1. This apparent inaccuracy is due to the fact that the scales for both x and Y axes used discrete values, which results in multiple points overlapping on top of one another. This was resolved by adding numbers next to the positions where several dots overlapped.
There are several redundant statements in the discussion and results section. Please make the text more concise.
*Response*: The discussion has now been shortened considerably, mostly by moving the paragraphs pertaining to technical considerations to the Methods section.
Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):
The current paper is built upon the improvement of previous published work. In addition, there are similar approaches that have been published. It was unclear if the current method is superior to other works.
*Response*: Whilst we have made no statement regarding whether the method we describe is superior to other methods, we are pretty confident that very few alternatives will be as frugal and simple as the HAT-field protocol described here. As alluded to in the final paragraph of the discussion, two recent reports have described that HAT could be performed on cards rather than in V-shaped wells, with semi-quantitative results being obtained in minutes. If such card-based approaches turn out to provide sensitivity and reliability comparable to those of the HAT-field protocol, they will certainly represent very interesting alternatives. As stated in our manuscript, we would be very interested if the comparative evaluation of the two approaches could be carried out by one or several independent third party.
My research involves the development of antiviral antibody therapeutics. This method may be used as a point-of-care tool for the measurement of serologic response to RBD in less developed countries. However, due to the high vaccination rate and large infected populations, the overall needs for such detection drastically decrease. The significance of the work and utilities of the test may expand with more experiments related to the variants.
Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):
This paper describes a low-cost robust and quantitative serological test based on haemgglutination, which could be used in resource limited settings for evaluating population-based and vaccine induced immunity. Neutralising antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) on the SARS CoV-2 spike protein are an immunological correlate of protection. The HAT has a single reagent the RBD domain of SARS CoV-2 linked to a monomeric anti-erythrocyte single domain nanobody. When human polyclonal serum antibodies bind to the RBD they cross-link and agglutinate human red blood cells, resulting in haemagglutination which can be read visually.
This paper thoroughly evaluate the stability of the HAT reagents used to measure human and monoclonal antibodies examining the robustness of the HAT reagent. It provides a comprehensive protocol for conducting field based HAT with limited reagents. The test can evaluate is subjects have been infected using a simple finger prick to detect RBD specific antibodies. The field HAT can also be used to define people that can be susceptible to reinfection or in need of vaccination, With the use of RBDs from the variants of concern the test can be rapidly adapted to evaluate antibodies as new variants arise to evaluate surrogate correlates of protection to allow timely evaluation of vaccine effectiveness and predict the need for vaccine booster doses.
The data are very comprehensively presented with good figures demonstrating the most appropriate buffer to store the IH4-RBD reagent and the robustness of the HAT over time at different temperatures.
No additional experiments are needed and suitable numbers of replicates are included.
All data, methods and reagents are comprehensively described.
Minor comments:
The paper is well written but rather long in places and may have benefited from being more succinct.
*Response*: The excessive length of the manuscript was mostly due to an extensive discussion of highly technical and practical points. The discussion has now been shortened considerably, mostly by moving the paragraphs pertaining to technical considerations to the Methods section.
Panels in figures could be labelled as A, B, C etc to help in identifying the correct panel..
*Response*: We thank the referee for this helpful suggestion, which we have followed.
I would avoid the use of experiment and project and refer to next we confirmed... or in this paper or our results show
Please make sure all abbreviation are defined upon first use.
Perhaps include early in the paper that most of the work was conducted with the Wuhan RBD
*Response*: We thank the referee for these helpful suggestions, which we have followed to the best of our abilities. The abstract now contains a mention of the fact the work on optimizing the protocol was carried out with the IH4-RBD carrying the Wuhan version.
Figure 2: I would suggest placing either a solid line between the two halves of the plates to make it easier for the reader to differentiate between the two antibodies. It also would have been easier to read if the bottom PBS, PBS-N3 and PBN were at 45 degree angle. In B include the serum name (e.g. serum 197).
*Response*: We thank the referee for these helpful suggestions, which we have followed.
Legend to figure 4: please include the serum numbers after covid-19 patients. Perhaps include arrows to demonstrate the dilutions of serum and IH4-RBD in the figure.
Page 6 it might be easiest to use the same times as in figure 6 and use for example more than one year in the discussion
*Response*: We thank the referee for these helpful suggestions, which we have all followed.
Legend figure 6 perhaps replace dots with circles
page 10 include the R values from figure 6 in the description of results.
*Response*: We are grateful to the referee for these helpful suggestions, but have not followed them since we do not feel that these changes would be real improvements.
Page 12 of note perhaps this can be moved to the methods ?
*Response*: This, and several other paragraphs of the Discussion, have now been moved to the Methods section.
Supplementary figure 2 A can be seen, is something missing here?
*Response*: An s was indeed missing : “A can be seen” corrected to “As can be seen “
Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):
This paper describes a simple rapid field test for evaluating antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the spike of SARS CoV-2 using the Wuhan and delta variant. Whilst high income countries can provide booster doses and extensive testing (either lateral flow or RT-PCR based) and contact racing to control the waves of the pandemic, low income countries have had limited access to Covid vaccine and the extent of previous waves of the pandemic in the populations are unknown.
This paper describes a robust and simple test for investigating human antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 which could be performed in resource limited settings providing a very useful tool for monitoring infection in the community and potentially for prioritising this scarce COVID-19 vaccines available.
This study builds upon the work conducted on the HAT and has extensively studied and optimised the test so that it could be used globally. This paper provides a comprehensive protocol and has simplified the test to ensure it could be used in LMICs.
This paper would be of great interest to a wide scientific audience who are interested in a rapid low-cost test to evaluate population based and vaccine induced immunity.
Reviewer: serological assays for use in virology and vaccinology. Suitable competence to review the whole paper *
