Limited Impact of Delta Variant's Mutations on the Effectiveness of Neutralization Conferred by Natural Infection or COVID-19 Vaccines in a Latino Population.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has impacted public health systems all over the world. The Delta variant seems to possess enhanced transmissibility, but no clear evidence suggests it has increased virulence. Our data show that pre-exposed individuals had similar neutralizing activity against the authentic COVID-19 strain and the Delta and Epsilon variants. After only one vaccine dose, the neutralization capacity expanded to all tested variants in pre-exposed individuals. Healthy vaccinated individuals showed a limited breadth of neutralization. One vaccine dose did induce similar neutralizing antibodies against the Delta as against the authentic strain. However, even after two doses, this capacity only expanded to the Epsilon variant.

Limited impact of Delta variant’s mutations in the effectiveness of neutralization conferred by natural infection or COVID-19 vaccines in a Latino population.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has impacted public health systems all over the world. The Delta variant seems to possess enhanced transmissibility, but no clear evidence suggests it has increased virulence. Our data shows that pre-exposed individuals had similar neutralizing activity against the authentic COVID-19 strain and the Delta and Epsilon variants. After one vaccine dose, the neutralization capacity expands to all tested variants. Healthy vaccinated individuals showed a limited breadth of neutralization. One vaccine dose induced similar neutralizing antibodies against the Delta compared to the authentic strain. However, even after two doses, this capacity only expanded to the Epsilon variant.

Function Is More Reliable than Quantity to Follow Up the Humoral Response to the Receptor-Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2-Spike Protein after Natural Infection or COVID-19 Vaccination.

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 naïve 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.

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.

RESUMEN: Reconociendo que era imperativo evaluar la recuperación de especies y el impacto de la conservación, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) convocó en 2012 al desarrollo de una "Lista Verde de Especies" (ahora el Estatus Verde de las Especies de la UICN). Un marco de referencia preliminar de una Lista Verde de Especies para evaluar el progreso de las especies hacia la recuperación, publicado en 2018, proponía 2 componentes separados pero interconectados: un método estandarizado (i.e., medición en relación con puntos de referencia de la viabilidad de especies, funcionalidad y distribución antes del impacto) para determinar el estatus de recuperación actual (puntuación de recuperación de la especie) y la aplicación de ese método para estimar impactos en el pasado y potenciales de conservación basados en 4 medidas (legado de conservación, dependencia de conservación, ganancia de conservación y potencial de recuperación). Probamos el marco de referencia con 181 especies representantes de diversos taxa, historias de vida, biomas, y categorías (riesgo de extinción) en la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Con base en la distribución observada de la puntuación de recuperación de las especies, proponemos las siguientes categorías de recuperación de la especie: totalmente recuperada, ligeramente mermada, moderadamente mermada, mayormente mermada, gravemente mermada, extinta en estado silvestre, e inderterminada. Cincuenta y nueve por ciento de las especies se consideraron mayormente o gravemente mermada. Aunque hubo una relación negativa entre el riesgo de extinción y la puntuación de recuperación de la especie, la variación fue considerable. Algunas especies en las categorías de riesgo bajas fueron evaluadas como más lejos de recuperarse que aquellas con alto riesgo. Esto enfatiza que la recuperación de especies es diferente conceptualmente al riesgo de extinción y refuerza la utilidad del Estado Verde de las Especies de la UICN para comprender integralmente el estatus de conservación de especies. Aunque el riesgo de extinción no predijo el legado de conservación, la dependencia de conservación o la ganancia de conservación, se correlacionó positivamente con la potencial de recuperación. Solo 1.7% de las especies probadas fue categorizado como cero en los 4 indicadores de impacto de la conservación, lo que indica que la conservación ha jugado, o jugará, un papel en la mejoría o mantenimiento del estatus de la especie la gran mayoría de ellas. Con base en nuestros resultados, diseñamos una versión actualizada del marco de referencia para la evaluación que introduce la opción de utilizar una línea de base dinámica para evaluar los impactos futuros de la conservación en el corto plazo y redefine corto plazo como 10 años.

Function is more reliable than quantity to follow up the humoral response to the Receptor Binding Domain of SARS- CoV-2 Spike protein after natural infection or COVID-19 vaccination.

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. We also report that serum neutralization capacity correlates with IgG titers, wherein IgG1 was the predominant isotype (62.71%), followed by IgG4 (15.25%), IgG3 (13.56%), and IgG2 (8.47%) at the earliest tested timepoint. IgA titers were detectable in just 28.81% of subjects, and only 62.71% of subjects had detectable IgM in the first sample despite confirmation of infection by a molecular diagnostic assay. Our data suggests that 100% of seroconverting patients make detectable neutralizing antibody responses which can be quantified by a surrogate viral neutralization test. Examination of sera from 10 out of the 59 subjects which had received an initial first dose of 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 naïve subjects. One dose was sufficient for induction of 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 seen after natural infection, after the second vaccine dose, the total anti-S antibodies titers declined, however, neutralizing activity remained relatively constant for more than 80 days after the first vaccine dose. The decline in anti-S antibody titer, however, was significantly less in pre-exposed individuals, highlighting the potential for natural infection to prime a more robust immune response to the vaccine. Furthermore, our data indicates that-compared with mRNA vaccination-natural infection induces a more robust humoral immune response in unexposed subjects. However, this difference was significant only when neutralizing antibody titers were compared among the two groups. No differences were observed between naturally infected and vaccinated individuals when total anti-S antibodies and IgG titers were measured. 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 a functional neutralizing antibody tests are more relevant indicators than the presence or absence of binding antibodies. In this context, our results also support standardizing methods of assessing the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 when determining vaccine efficacy and describing the immune correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2.