OBJECTIVE: Successful HIV vaccine and entry inhibitor development depends on use of assay systems that closely reflect in-vivo activities. Recent reports suggest that the currently most widely used assay format, which relies on the genetically engineered target cell line TZM-bl, can fail to detect certain neutralization activities detected on primary peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC)-based assay systems. In the present study, we investigate the influence the target cell context bears on HIV entry inhibition. DESIGN: In a comprehensive survey, the effect of 11 neutralizing antibodies and inhibitors in blocking entry of 30 envelope pseudotyped virus strains in two types of target cells, PBMC and TZM-bl, was evaluated. METHODS: Env-pseudotyped HIV infection of PBMC and TZM-bl cells. RESULTS: We demonstrate here that depending on the type of inhibitor, relative neutralization potencies are shifted to a variable extent and direction on TZM-bl and PBMC cells. In our assay set up, differences in inhibitor activity were solely effected by the target cell environment and amounted up to 2-3 logs lower activity on TZM-bl cells in several cases. Overall, neutralizing antibodies, 2G12, 2F5 and 4E10, were less active in the TZM-bl system, whereas CD4 binding site directed inhibitor activities were detected equally well on both target cells, raising concerns that the TZM-bl assay may overrate the relevance of CD4 binding site specific responses. CONCLUSION: Our data strongly argue that preclinical assessment should not be restricted to a single type of assay, as systematic underestimation or overestimation of activities would be inevitable.
OBJECTIVE: Successful HIV vaccine and entry inhibitor development depends on use of assay systems that closely reflect in-vivo activities. Recent reports suggest that the currently most widely used assay format, which relies on the genetically engineered target cell line TZM-bl, can fail to detect certain neutralization activities detected on primary peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC)-based assay systems. In the present study, we investigate the influence the target cell context bears on HIV entry inhibition. DESIGN: In a comprehensive survey, the effect of 11 neutralizing antibodies and inhibitors in blocking entry of 30 envelope pseudotyped virus strains in two types of target cells, PBMC and TZM-bl, was evaluated. METHODS:Env-pseudotyped HIV infection of PBMC and TZM-bl cells. RESULTS: We demonstrate here that depending on the type of inhibitor, relative neutralization potencies are shifted to a variable extent and direction on TZM-bl and PBMC cells. In our assay set up, differences in inhibitor activity were solely effected by the target cell environment and amounted up to 2-3 logs lower activity on TZM-bl cells in several cases. Overall, neutralizing antibodies, 2G12, 2F5 and 4E10, were less active in the TZM-bl system, whereas CD4 binding site directed inhibitor activities were detected equally well on both target cells, raising concerns that the TZM-bl assay may overrate the relevance of CD4 binding site specific responses. CONCLUSION: Our data strongly argue that preclinical assessment should not be restricted to a single type of assay, as systematic underestimation or overestimation of activities would be inevitable.
Authors: Axel Mann; Nikolas Friedrich; Anders Krarup; Jacqueline Weber; Emanuel Stiegeler; Birgit Dreier; Pavel Pugach; Melissa Robbiani; Tina Riedel; Kerstin Moehle; John A Robinson; Peter Rusert; Andreas Plückthun; Alexandra Trkola Journal: J Virol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Andrew Rosa Borges; Lindsay Wieczorek; Benitra Johnson; Alan J Benesi; Bruce K Brown; Richard D Kensinger; Fred C Krebs; Brian Wigdahl; Robert Blumenthal; Anu Puri; Francine E McCutchan; Deborah L Birx; Victoria R Polonis; Cara-Lynne Schengrund Journal: Virology Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 3.616
Authors: Claudia R Ruprecht; Anders Krarup; Lucy Reynell; Axel M Mann; Oliver F Brandenberg; Livia Berlinger; Irene A Abela; Roland R Regoes; Huldrych F Günthard; Peter Rusert; Alexandra Trkola Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Peter Rusert; Anders Krarup; Carsten Magnus; Oliver F Brandenberg; Jacqueline Weber; Anna-Katharina Ehlert; Roland R Regoes; Huldrych F Günthard; Alexandra Trkola Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Sunita S Balla-Jhagjhoorsingh; Betty Willems; Liesbeth Heyndrickx; Leo Heyndrickx; Katleen Vereecken; Wouter Janssens; Michael S Seaman; Davide Corti; Antonio Lanzavecchia; David Davis; Guido Vanham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yasuhiro Nishiyama; Stephanie Planque; Carl V Hanson; Richard J Massey; Sudhir Paul Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 7.561