Neutralizing antibody activity in convalescent sera from infection in humans with SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern.

COVID-19 vaccine design and vaccination rollout need to take into account a detailed understanding of antibody durability and cross-neutralizing potential against SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants of concern (VOCs). Analyses of convalescent sera provide unique insights into antibody longevity and cross-neutralizing activity induced by variant spike proteins, which are putative vaccine candidates. Using sera from 38 individuals infected in wave 1, we show that cross-neutralizing activity can be detected up to 305 days pos onset of symptoms, although sera were less potent against B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and B1.351 (Beta). Over time, despite a reduction in overall neutralization activity, differences in sera neutralization potency against SARS-CoV-2 and the Alpha and Beta variants decreased, which suggests that continued antibody maturation improves tolerance to spike mutations. We also compared the cross-neutralizing activity of wave 1 sera with sera from individuals infected with the Alpha, the Beta or the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variants up to 79 days post onset of symptoms. While these sera neutralize the infecting VOC and parental virus to similar levels, cross-neutralization of different SARS-CoV-2 VOC lineages is reduced. These findings will inform the optimization of vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Antibody longevity and cross-neutralizing activity following SARS-CoV-2 wave 1 and B.1.1.7 infections.

As SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge globally, a major challenge for COVID-19 vaccination is the generation of a durable antibody response with cross-neutralizing activity against both current and newly emerging viral variants. Cross-neutralizing activity against major variants of concern (B.1.1.7, P.1 and B.1.351) has been observed following vaccination, albeit at a reduced potency, but whether vaccines based on the Spike glycoprotein of these viral variants will produce a superior cross-neutralizing antibody response has not been fully investigated. Here, we used sera from individuals infected in wave 1 in the UK to study the long-term cross-neutralization up to 10 months post onset of symptoms (POS), as well as sera from individuals infected with the B.1.1.7 variant to compare cross-neutralizing activity profiles. We show that neutralizing antibodies with cross-neutralizing activity can be detected from wave 1 up to 10 months POS. Although neutralization of B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 is lower, the difference in neutralization potency decreases at later timepoints suggesting continued antibody maturation and improved tolerance to Spike mutations. Interestingly, we found that B.1.1.7 infection also generates a cross-neutralizing antibody response, which, although still less potent against B.1.351, can neutralize parental wave 1 virus to a similar degree as B.1.1.7. These findings have implications for the optimization of vaccines that protect against newly emerging viral variants.

Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer. METHODS: For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 µg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031). FINDINGS: 151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. FUNDING: King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

Neutralization potency of monoclonal antibodies recognizing dominant and subdominant epitopes on SARS-CoV-2 Spike is impacted by the B.1.1.7 variant.

Interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) with the receptor ACE2 on host cells is essential for viral entry. RBD is the dominant target for neutralizing antibodies, and several neutralizing epitopes on RBD have been molecularly characterized. Analysis of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants has revealed mutations arising in the RBD, N-terminal domain (NTD) and S2 subunits of Spike. To understand how these mutations affect Spike antigenicity, we isolated and characterized >100 monoclonal antibodies targeting epitopes on RBD, NTD, and S2 from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Approximately 45% showed neutralizing activity, of which ∼20% were NTD specific. NTD-specific antibodies formed two distinct groups: the first was highly potent against infectious virus, whereas the second was less potent and displayed glycan-dependant neutralization activity. Mutations present in B.1.1.7 Spike frequently conferred neutralization resistance to NTD-specific antibodies. This work demonstrates that neutralizing antibodies targeting subdominant epitopes should be considered when investigating antigenic drift in emerging variants.

The SMC5/6 complex compacts and silences unintegrated HIV-1 DNA and is antagonized by Vpr.

Silencing of nuclear DNA is an essential feature of innate immune responses to invading pathogens. Early in infection, unintegrated lentiviral cDNA accumulates in the nucleus yet remains poorly expressed. In HIV-1-like lentiviruses, the Vpr accessory protein enhances unintegrated viral DNA expression, suggesting Vpr antagonizes cellular restriction. We previously showed how Vpr remodels the host proteome, identifying multiple cellular targets. We now screen these using a targeted CRISPR-Cas9 library and identify SMC5-SMC6 complex localization factor 2 (SLF2) as the Vpr target responsible for silencing unintegrated HIV-1. SLF2 recruits the SMC5/6 complex to unintegrated lentiviruses, and depletion of SLF2, or the SMC5/6 complex, increases viral expression. ATAC-seq demonstrates that Vpr-mediated SLF2 depletion increases chromatin accessibility of unintegrated virus, suggesting that the SMC5/6 complex compacts viral chromatin to silence gene expression. This work implicates the SMC5/6 complex in nuclear immunosurveillance of extrachromosomal DNA and defines its targeting by Vpr as an evolutionarily conserved antagonism.

Src family kinase activity drives cytomegalovirus reactivation by recruiting MOZ histone acetyltransferase activity to the viral promoter.

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) latency and reactivation rely on a complex interplay between cellular differentiation, cell signaling pathways, and viral gene functions. HCMV reactivation in dendritic cells (DCs) is triggered by IL-6 and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling. However, activation of the same pathway fails to reactivate HCMV in other myeloid cell types, despite this signaling axis being active in those cells. We hypothesized that IL-6-induced ERK activation initiates the changes in chromatin structure required for viral reactivation but that a concomitant signal is necessary to complete the changes in chromatin structure required for gene expression to occur. Using a differential phosphoproteomics approach in cells that do or do not support IL-6-induced viral reactivation, we identified the concomitant activation of an Src family kinase (SFK), hematopoietic cell kinase (HCK), specifically in DCs in response to IL-6. Pharmacological and genetic inhibition of HCK activity indicated that HCK is required for HCMV reactivation. Furthermore, the HCK/SFK activity was linked to recruitment of the monocytic leukemia zinc finger protein (MOZ) histone acetyltransferase to the viral promoter, which promoted histone acetylation after ERK-mediated histone phosphorylation. Importantly, pharmacological and genetic inhibition of MOZ activity prevented reactivation. These results provide an explanation for the selective activation of viral gene expression in DCs by IL-6, dependent on concomitant SFK and ERK signaling. They also reveal a previously unreported role for SFK activity in the regulation of chromatin structure at promoters in eukaryotic cells via MOZ histone acetyltransferase activity.

Histone deacetylase 4 promotes type I interferon signaling, restricts DNA viruses, and is degraded via vaccinia virus protein C6.

Interferons (IFNs) represent an important host defense against viruses. Type I IFNs induce JAK-STAT signaling and expression of IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs), which mediate antiviral activity. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) perform multiple functions in regulating gene expression and some class I HDACs and the class IV HDAC, HDAC11, influence type I IFN signaling. Here, HDAC4, a class II HDAC, is shown to promote type I IFN signaling and coprecipitate with STAT2. Pharmacological inhibition of class II HDAC activity, or knockout of HDAC4 from HEK-293T and HeLa cells, caused a defective response to IFN-α. This defect in HDAC4-/- cells was rescued by reintroduction of HDAC4 or catalytically inactive HDAC4, but not HDAC1 or HDAC5. ChIP analysis showed HDAC4 was recruited to ISG promoters following IFN stimulation and was needed for binding of STAT2 to these promoters. The biological importance of HDAC4 as a virus restriction factor was illustrated by the observations that (i) the replication and spread of vaccinia virus (VACV) and herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) were enhanced in HDAC4-/- cells and inhibited by overexpression of HDAC4; and (ii) HDAC4 is targeted for proteasomal degradation during VACV infection by VACV protein C6, a multifunctional IFN antagonist that coprecipitates with HDAC4 and is necessary and sufficient for HDAC4 degradation.

Cytomegalovirus latency and reactivation: recent insights into an age old problem.

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection remains a major cause of morbidity in patient populations. In certain clinical settings, it is the reactivation of the pre-existing latent infection in the host that poses the health risk. The prevailing view of HCMV latency was that the virus was essentially quiescent in myeloid progenitor cells and that terminal differentiation resulted in the initiation of the lytic lifecycle and reactivation of infectious virus. However, our understanding of HCMV latency and reactivation at the molecular level has been greatly enhanced through recent advancements in systems biology approaches to perform global analyses of both experimental and natural latency. These approaches, in concert with more classical reductionist experimentation, are furnishing researchers with new concepts in cytomegalovirus latency and suggest that latent infection is far more active than first thought. In this review, we will focus on new studies that suggest that distinct sites of cellular latency could exist in the human host, which, when coupled with recent observations that report different transcriptional programmes within cells of the myeloid lineage, argues for multiple latent phenotypes that could impact differently on the biology of this virus in vivo. Finally, we will also consider how the biology of the host cell where the latent infection persists further contributes to the concept of a spectrum of latent phenotypes in multiple cell types that can be exploited by the virus.