Characterization of neutralizing versus binding antibodies and memory B cells in COVID-19 recovered individuals from India.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, IgG, IgM, IgA and memory B cells in COVID-19 recovered individual from India.
About: This article is published in Virology.The article was published on 2021-03-05 and is currently open access. It has received 21 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Neutralizing antibody & Vaccine evaluation.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other expert organizations recommended that all patients with MS should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as discussed by the authors, however, they did not recommend that all MS patients with mild relapses be vaccinated.
Abstract: Background and Aims:The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other expert organizations recommended that all patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) should be vaccinated against COVID-19. However,...
276 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated long-term IgG antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and B-cell memory response in COVID-19 convalescent subjects.
33 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors evaluated the accuracy of serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to detect cases of SARS•CoV•2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests.
Abstract: Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain.
19 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report that despite a decline in total S-specific antibodies, neutralizing antibody titers remain at a similar level for an average of 98 days in longitudinal sampling of a cohort of 59 Hispanic/Latino patients exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
Abstract: Both the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and emergence of variants of concern have highlighted the need for functional antibody assays to monitor the humoral response over time. Antibodies directed against the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 are an important component of the neutralizing antibody response. In this work, we report that in a subset of patients-despite a decline in total S-specific antibodies-neutralizing antibody titers remain at a similar level for an average of 98 days in longitudinal sampling of a cohort of 59 Hispanic/Latino patients exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Our data suggest that 100% of seroconverting patients make detectable neutralizing antibody responses which can be quantified by a surrogate viral neutralization test. Examination of sera from ten out of the 59 subjects which received mRNA-based vaccination revealed that both IgG titers and neutralizing activity of sera were higher after vaccination compared to a cohort of 21 SARS-CoV-2 naive subjects. One dose was sufficient for the induction of a neutralizing antibody, but two doses were necessary to reach 100% surrogate virus neutralization in subjects irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 natural infection status. Like the pattern observed after natural infection, the total anti-S antibodies titers declined after the second vaccine dose; however, neutralizing activity remained relatively constant for more than 80 days after the first vaccine dose. Furthermore, our data indicates that-compared with mRNA vaccination-natural infection induces a more robust humoral immune response in unexposed subjects. This work is an important contribution to understanding the natural immune response to the novel coronavirus in a population severely impacted by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, by comparing the dynamics of the immune response after the natural infection vs. the vaccination, these findings suggest that functional neutralizing antibody tests are more relevant indicators than the presence or absence of binding antibodies.
18 citations
TL;DR: A receptor binding domain (RBD)–specific mAb 002-S21F2 that has rare gene usage and potently neutralized live viral isolates of SARS-CoV-2 variants including Omicron sublineages is found by characterizing several human monoclonal antibodies isolated from single B cells of the COVID-19–recovered individuals in India.
Abstract: In this study, by characterizing several human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) isolated from single B cells of the COVID-19–recovered individuals in India who experienced ancestral Wuhan strain (WA.1) of SARS-CoV-2 during early stages of the pandemic, we found a receptor binding domain (RBD)–specific mAb 002-S21F2 that has rare gene usage and potently neutralized live viral isolates of SARS-CoV-2 variants including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron sublineages (BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) with IC50 ranging from 0.02 to 0.13 μg/ml. Structural studies of 002-S21F2 in complex with spike trimers of Omicron and WA.1 showed that it targets a conformationally conserved epitope on the outer face of RBD (class 3 surface) outside the ACE2-binding motif, thereby providing a mechanistic insights for its broad neutralization activity. The discovery of 002-S21F2 and the broadly neutralizing epitope it targets have timely implications for developing a broad range of therapeutic and vaccine interventions against SARS-CoV-2 variants including Omicron sublineages.
17 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: High-resolution crystal structures of the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS -CoV in complex with ACE2 provide insights into the binding mode of these coronaviruses and highlight essential ACE2-interacting residues.
Abstract: A new and highly pathogenic coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, SARS-CoV-2) caused an outbreak in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China, starting from December 2019 that quickly spread nationwide and to other countries around the world1–3. Here, to better understand the initial step of infection at an atomic level, we determined the crystal structure of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 bound to the cell receptor ACE2. The overall ACE2-binding mode of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is nearly identical to that of the SARS-CoV RBD, which also uses ACE2 as the cell receptor4. Structural analysis identified residues in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD that are essential for ACE2 binding, the majority of which either are highly conserved or share similar side chain properties with those in the SARS-CoV RBD. Such similarity in structure and sequence strongly indicate convergent evolution between the SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV RBDs for improved binding to ACE2, although SARS-CoV-2 does not cluster within SARS and SARS-related coronaviruses1–3,5. The epitopes of two SARS-CoV antibodies that target the RBD are also analysed for binding to the SARS-CoV-2 RBD, providing insights into the future identification of cross-reactive antibodies. High-resolution crystal structures of the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV in complex with ACE2 provide insights into the binding mode of these coronaviruses and highlight essential ACE2-interacting residues.
4,555 citations
TL;DR: Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘megapools’, circulating SARS-CoV-2−specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS.
3,043 citations
TL;DR: The crystal structure of the C-terminal domain of SARS-CoV-2 (SARS- coV- 2-CTD) spike (S) protein in complex with human ACE2 (hACE2) is presented, which reveals a hACE2-binding mode similar overall to that observed for SARS -CoV.
2,334 citations
TL;DR: In this preliminary uncontrolled case series of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, administration of convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody was followed by improvement in their clinical status, and these observations require evaluation in clinical trials.
Abstract: Importance Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents and substantial mortality. It is critical to find new treatments. Objective To determine whether convalescent plasma transfusion may be beneficial in the treatment of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design, Setting, and Participants Case series of 5 critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who met the following criteria: severe pneumonia with rapid progression and continuously high viral load despite antiviral treatment; Pao2/Fio2 Exposures Patients received transfusion with convalescent plasma with a SARS-CoV-2–specific antibody (IgG) binding titer greater than 1:1000 (end point dilution titer, by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) and a neutralization titer greater than 40 (end point dilution titer) that had been obtained from 5 patients who recovered from COVID-19. Convalescent plasma was administered between 10 and 22 days after admission. Main Outcomes and Measures Changes of body temperature, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range 0-24, with higher scores indicating more severe illness), Pao2/Fio2, viral load, serum antibody titer, routine blood biochemical index, ARDS, and ventilatory and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) supports before and after convalescent plasma transfusion. Results All 5 patients (age range, 36-65 years; 2 women) were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment and all had received antiviral agents and methylprednisolone. Following plasma transfusion, body temperature normalized within 3 days in 4 of 5 patients, the SOFA score decreased, and Pao2/Fio2increased within 12 days (range, 172-276 before and 284-366 after). Viral loads also decreased and became negative within 12 days after the transfusion, and SARS-CoV-2–specific ELISA and neutralizing antibody titers increased following the transfusion (range, 40-60 before and 80-320 on day 7). ARDS resolved in 4 patients at 12 days after transfusion, and 3 patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation within 2 weeks of treatment. Of the 5 patients, 3 have been discharged from the hospital (length of stay: 53, 51, and 55 days), and 2 are in stable condition at 37 days after transfusion. Conclusions and Relevance In this preliminary uncontrolled case series of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, administration of convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody was followed by improvement in their clinical status. The limited sample size and study design preclude a definitive statement about the potential effectiveness of this treatment, and these observations require evaluation in clinical trials.
2,001 citations
TL;DR: CP therapy was well tolerated and could potentially improve the clinical outcomes through neutralizing viremia in severe COVID-19 cases and the optimal dose and time point, as well as the clinical benefit of CP therapy, needs further investigation in larger well-controlled trials.
Abstract: Currently, there are no approved specific antiviral agents for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, 10 severe patients confirmed by real-time viral RNA test were enrolled prospectively. One dose of 200 mL of convalescent plasma (CP) derived from recently recovered donors with the neutralizing antibody titers above 1:640 was transfused to the patients as an addition to maximal supportive care and antiviral agents. The primary endpoint was the safety of CP transfusion. The second endpoints were the improvement of clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters within 3 d after CP transfusion. The median time from onset of illness to CP transfusion was 16.5 d. After CP transfusion, the level of neutralizing antibody increased rapidly up to 1:640 in five cases, while that of the other four cases maintained at a high level (1:640). The clinical symptoms were significantly improved along with increase of oxyhemoglobin saturation within 3 d. Several parameters tended to improve as compared to pretransfusion, including increased lymphocyte counts (0.65 × 109/L vs. 0.76 × 109/L) and decreased C-reactive protein (55.98 mg/L vs. 18.13 mg/L). Radiological examinations showed varying degrees of absorption of lung lesions within 7 d. The viral load was undetectable after transfusion in seven patients who had previous viremia. No severe adverse effects were observed. This study showed CP therapy was well tolerated and could potentially improve the clinical outcomes through neutralizing viremia in severe COVID-19 cases. The optimal dose and time point, as well as the clinical benefit of CP therapy, needs further investigation in larger well-controlled trials.
1,645 citations