Antibodies play a central role in prophylaxis against many infectious agents. While neutralization is a primary function of antibodies, the Fc- and complement-dependent activities of these multifunctional proteins may also be critical in their ability to provide protection against most viruses. Protection against viral pathogens in vivo is complex, and while virus neutralization—the ability of antibody to inactivate virus infectivity, often measured in vitro—is important, it is often only a partial contributor in protection. The rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) remains the “gold standard” assay to measure rabies virus–neutralizing antibodies. In addition to neutralization, the rabies-specific antigen-binding activity of antibodies may be measured through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), as well as other available methods. For any disease, in selecting the appropriate assay(s) to use to assess antibody titers, assay validation and how they are interpreted are important considerations—but for a fatal disease like rabies, they are of paramount importance. The innate limitations of a one-dimensional laboratory test for rabies antibody measurement, as well as the validation of the method of choice, must be carefully considered in the selection of an assay method and for the interpretation of results that might be construed as a surrogate of protection.

Both cell-mediated and humoral immune effectors are important in combating rabies infection, although the humoral response receives greater attention regarding rabies prevention. The principle of preventive vaccination has been adopted for strategies of oral rabies vaccination (ORV) of wildlife reservoir populations for decades to control circulation of rabies virus in free-ranging hosts. There remains much debate about the levels of rabies antibodies (and the assays to measure them) that confer resistance to rabies virus. In this paper, data from published literature and our own unpublished animal studies on the induction of rabies binding and neutralizing antibodies following oral immunization of animals with live attenuated or recombinant rabies vaccines, are examined as correlates of protection against lethal rabies infection in captive challenge settings. Analysis of our studies suggests that, though serum neutralization test results are expected to reflect in vivo protection, the blocking enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) result at Day 28 was a better predictor of survival. ELISA kits may have an advantage of greater precision and ability to compare results among different studies and laboratories based on the inherent standardization of the kit format. This paper examines current knowledge and study findings to guide meaningful interpretation of serology results in oral baiting monitoring.

The case fatality rate of rabies, nearly 100%, is one of the most unique characteristic of this ancient virus infection. The crucial role rabies virus neutralizing antibody plays in protection is both well established and explanation of why rabies serology is important. Various laboratory methods can and have been used but serum neutralization methods have long been the gold standard due to the ability to measure function (neutralization), however these methods can be difficult to perform for several reasons. Assays such as enzyme linked absorbance assays (ELISA), indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA) and more recently lateral flow methods are in use. Interpretation of results can be problematic, not only between methods but also due to modifications of the same method that can lead to misinterpretations. A common assumption in review of laboratory test results is that different methods for the same component produce comparable results under all conditions or circumstances. Assumptions and misinterpretations provide the potential for detrimental decisions, ranging from regulatory to clinically related, and most importantly what ‘level’ is protective. Review of the common challenges in performance and interpretation of rabies serology and specific examples illuminate critical issues to consider when reviewing and applying results of rabies serological testing.

The rabies rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) is the most widely used cell-based assay for detecting and quantitating rabies virus neutralizing antibodies (RVNA) in human serum. However, it is a complex, labor intensive, and somewhat subjective manual assay, the performance of which may be affected by a number of factors including the quality of cells and virus, variability of assay reagents and the skill and expertise of analysts. This study sought to identify and evaluate conditions that may impact RFFIT performance and RVNA detection by evaluating assay parameters including: different serial dilution scheme of serum samples in a 96-well microplate using semi-automated pipetting systems, the range of dose of challenge virus standard (CVS-11) strain of rabies virus, the effect of complement (C'), the effect of cell seeding density and passage number, the effect of diethylaminoethyl (DEAE) dextran concentration on virus infectivity, and the assay incubation period prior to immunostaining. In addition the evaluation of counting fluorescent foci using a microscope versus using scanned images from a cell imaging reader was performed in an effort to ease the reading of slides and have permanent records of the raw data. The results from optimization of each parameter are presented along with subsequent assay validation in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines. The improved and optimized RFFIT accuracy, linearity and sensitivity was demonstrated by testing World Health Organization (WHO)-1 and WHO-2 Standard Rabies Immune Globulins (SRIGs) and complete assay development and validation was performed in compliance with Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) guidelines.