RESUMEN
The continued evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has led to the emergence of numerous sublineages with different patterns of evasion from neutralizing antibodies. We investigated neutralizing activity in immune sera from individuals vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type spike (S) glycoprotein-based COVID-19 mRNA vaccines after subsequent breakthrough infection with Omicron BA.1, BA.2, or BA.4/BA.5 to study antibody responses against sublineages of high relevance. We report that exposure of vaccinated individuals to infections with Omicron sublineages, and especially with BA.4/BA.5, results in a boost of Omicron BA.4.6, BF.7, BQ.1.1, and BA.2.75 neutralization, but does not efficiently boost neutralization of sublineages BA.2.75.2 and XBB. Accordingly, we found in in silico analyses that with occurrence of the Omicron lineage a large portion of neutralizing B-cell epitopes were lost, and that in Omicron BA.2.75.2 and XBB less than 12% of the wild-type strain epitopes are conserved. In contrast, HLA class I and class II presented T-cell epitopes in the S glycoprotein were highly conserved across the entire evolution of SARS-CoV-2 including Alpha, Beta, and Delta and Omicron sublineages, suggesting that CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell recognition of Omicron BQ.1.1, BA.2.75.2, and XBB may be largely intact. Our study suggests that while some Omicron sublineages effectively evade B-cell immunity by altering neutralizing antibody epitopes, S protein-specific T-cell immunity, due to the very nature of the polymorphic cell-mediated immune, response is likely to remain unimpacted and may continue to contribute to prevention or limitation of severe COVID-19 manifestation.
RESUMEN
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and its sublineages show pronounced viral escape from neutralizing antibodies elicited by vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 variant infection owing to over 30 amino acid alterations within the spike (S) glycoprotein. We and others have recently reported that breakthrough infection of vaccinated individuals with Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2 are associated with distinct patterns of cross-neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs). BA.2 breakthrough infection mediated overall stronger cross-neutralization of BA.2 and its descendants (BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) compared to BA.1 breakthrough infection. Here we characterized the effect of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 S glycoprotein exposure on the magnitude and breadth of the neutralizing antibody response upon breakthrough infection in vaccinated individuals and in mice upon booster vaccination. We show that immune sera from triple mRNA-vaccinated individuals with subsequent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 breakthrough infection display broad and robust neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4/BA.5. Administration of a prototypic BA.4/BA.5-adapted mRNA booster vaccine to mice following SARS-CoV-2 wild-type strain-based primary immunization is associated with similarly broad neutralizing activity. Immunization of naive mice with a bivalent mRNA vaccine (wild-type + Omicron BA.4/BA.5) induces strong and broad neutralizing activity against Omicron VOCs and previous variants. These findings suggest that when administered as boosters, mono- and bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted vaccines may enhance neutralization breadth, and in a bivalent format may also have the potential to confer protection to individuals with no pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMEN
Due to numerous mutations in the spike protein, the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern Omicron (B.1.1.529) raises serious concerns since it may significantly limit the antibody-mediated neutralization and increase the risk of reinfections. While a rapid increase in the number of cases is being reported worldwide, until now there has been uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccinations and monoclonal antibodies. Our in vitro findings using authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants indicate that in contrast to the currently circulating Delta variant, the neutralization efficacy of vaccine-elicited sera against Omicron was severely reduced highlighting T-cell mediated immunity as essential barrier to prevent severe COVID-19. Since SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was resistant to casirivimab and imdevimab, genotyping of SARS-CoV-2 may be needed before initiating mAb treatment. Variant-specific vaccines and mAb agents may be required to treat COVID-19 due to Omicron and other emerging variants of concern.
RESUMEN
The IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) prevents viral attachment and entry into human cells by blocking attachment to the ACE2 receptor. However, whether bamlanivimab is equally effective against SARS-CoV-2 emerging variants of concern (VOC) is not fully known. Hence, the aim of this study was to determine whether bamlanivimab is equally effective against SARS-CoV-2 emerging VOC. The ability of bamlanivimab to neutralize five SARS-CoV-2 variants including B.1.1.7 (mutations include N501Y and del69/70), B.1.351 (mutations include E484K and N501Y) and P.2 (mutations include E484K in the absence of a N501Y mutation) was analyzed in infectious cell culture using CaCo2 cells. Additionally, we analyzed vaccine-elicited sera after immunization with BNT162b2, and convalescent sera for its ability to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants. We found that the variant B.1.1.7, as well as two isolates from early 2020 (FFM1 and FFM7) could be efficiently neutralized by bamlanivimab (titer 1/1280, respectively), however, no neutralization effect could be detected against either B.1.135 or P.2, both harboring the E484K substitution. Vaccine-elicited sera showed slightly decreased neutralizing activity against B1.1.7, B.1.135 and P.2 Our in vitro findings indicate that, in contrast to vaccine-elicited sera, bamlanivimab may not provide efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants harboring the E484K substitution. Confirmation of the SARS-CoV-2 variant, including screening for E484K, may be needed before initiating mAb treatment with bamlanivimab to ensure both efficacious and efficient use of the antibody product. Hence, variant-specific mAb agents may be required to treat emerging VOC.
RESUMEN
BackgroundRapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 became available recently, offering an opportunity to vastly increase testing capacities. Antigen tests offer lower sensitivity than the gold standard, RT-PCR, but rapid sample-to-answer time. High-frequency testing with an antigen test may offset the lower sensitivity, and testing can be done with at-home collection of samples, offering potential benefit in screening efforts. In this study, we set out to evaluate the practical application of self-performed high-frequency antigen test in a school setting. MethodA total of 711 teachers from 86 schools were enrolled in a seven-week study. After instruction, participants tested themselves every 48 hours at home with a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 (target: nucleocapsid protein) in a self-collected anterior nasal swab. Positive results in the antigen test were confirmed via RT-PCR from the same sample that had been determined to be positive by the study participant. A questionnaire was given to all participants to evaluate whether the test failed to detect infection. Findings10 836 tests from 602 teachers were recorded and analyzed. A total of five confirmed cases of viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was detected by use of the antigen test. One study participant with a SARS-CoV-2 infection was presymptomatic and four were mildly symptomatic at the time of the antigen test. Sixteen false positive antigen tests (0.15% of all tests) were reported, predominantly when the local incidence in the general population was low. In four cases, the study participant reported that a PCR had detected a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the antigen test was negative, indicating a false negative result. InterpretationHigh-frequency, self-performed rapid antigen tests can detect individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore potentially reduce transmissions. Testing may be most beneficial when applied during high local incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and when mild or atypical symptoms are present. To avoid a high rate of false positive results, a test with optimized specificity should be used. FundingThe study was commissioned and funded by the Hessian Ministry of Education and the Hessian Ministry of Integration and Social Affairs.
RESUMEN
As the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is little data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples and if detected IgG antibodies provide protective immunity. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG & Vircell COVID-19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay ((LFA) FaStep COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in-house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT)). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 samples were from individuals with moderate to severe clinical course, who required an in-patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5-9) and from 93.8 to 100% for the later period (days 10-18) after PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. With exception of one sample, all positive tested samples in the analysed cohort, using the commercially available assays examined (including the in-house developed IFA), demonstrated neutralizing (protective) properties in the PRNT, indicating a potential protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Regarding specificity, there was evidence that samples of endemic coronavirus (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) infected individuals cross-reacted in the ELISA assays and IFA, in one case generating a false positive result (may giving a false sense of security). This need to be further investigated.