Interlaboratory comparison for the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) anti-Ebola virus glycoprotein immunoglobulin G enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 25;15(8):e0238196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238196. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

The need for an efficacious vaccine against highly pathogenic filoviruses was reinforced by the devastating 2014-2016 outbreak of Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia that resulted in over 28,000 cases and over 11,300 deaths. In addition, the 2018-2020 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo currently has over 3,400 cases and over 2,200 deaths. A fully licensed vaccine and at least one other investigational vaccine are being deployed to combat this EVD outbreak. To support vaccine development and pre-clinical/clinical testing a Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) human anti-EBOV GP IgG ELISA was developed to measure anti-EBOV GP IgG antibodies. This ELISA is currently being used in multiple laboratories. Reported here is a characterization of an interlaboratory statistical analysis of the human anti-EBOV GP IgG ELISA as part of a collaborative study between five participating laboratories. Each laboratory used similar method protocols and reagents to measure anti-EBOV GP IgG levels in human serum samples from a proficiency panel consisting of ten serum samples created by the differential dilution of a serum sample positive for anti-GP IgG antibodies (BMIZAIRE105) with negative serum (BMI529). The total assay variability (inter- and intra-assay variability) %CVs observed at each laboratory ranged from 12.2 to 30.6. Intermediate precision (inter-assay variability) for the laboratory runs ranged from 8.9 to 21.7%CV and repeatability (intra-assay variability) %CVs ranged from 7.2 to 23.7. The estimated slope for the relationship between log10(Target Concentration) and the log10(Observed Concentration) across all five laboratories was 0.95 with a 90% confidence interval of (0.93, 0.97). Equivalence test results showed that the 90% confidence interval for the ratios for the sample-specific mean concentrations at the five individual labs to the overall laboratory consensus value were within the equivalence bounds of 0.80 to 1.25 for each laboratory and test sample, except for six test samples from Lab D, two samples from Lab B1, and one sample from Lab B2. The mean laboratory concentrations for Lab D were less than those from the other laboratories by 20% on average across the serum samples. The evaluation of the proficiency panel at these laboratories provides a limited assessment of assay precision (intermediate precision, repeatability, and total assay variability), dilutional linearity, and accuracy. This evaluation suggests that the within-laboratory performance of the anti-EBOV GP IgG ELISA as implemented at the five laboratories is consistent with the intended use of the assay based on the acceptance criteria used by laboratories that have validated the assay. However, the assessment of between-laboratory performance revealed lower observed concentrations at Lab D and greater variability in assay results at Lab B1 relative to other laboratories.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Africa, Western / epidemiology
  • Animals
  • Antibodies, Viral / blood*
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo / epidemiology
  • Disease Outbreaks
  • Ebola Vaccines / immunology
  • Ebola Vaccines / isolation & purification
  • Ebolavirus / immunology*
  • Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / standards*
  • Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / statistics & numerical data
  • Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / epidemiology
  • Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / immunology*
  • Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / prevention & control
  • Humans
  • Immunoglobulin G / blood
  • Laboratories
  • Observer Variation
  • Viral Proteins / immunology*

Substances

  • Antibodies, Viral
  • Ebola Vaccines
  • Immunoglobulin G
  • Viral Proteins

Grants and funding

This project has been funded in whole or in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Medical (JPM-CBRN Medical) under Battelle contract number GS00Q140ADU402, delivery order W911QY-16-F0074. The funding body contributed to study design and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or official position of the DOD.