Protection from infection and reinfection due to the Omicron BA.1 variant in care homes.

Introduction: Following the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, care homes were disproportionately impacted by high mortality and morbidity of vulnerable elderly residents. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and improved infection control measures together with vaccination campaigns have since improved outcomes of infection. We studied the utility of past infection status, recent vaccination and anti-S antibody titres as possible correlates of protection against a newly emergent Omicron variant infection. Methods: Prospective longitudinal surveillance of nine sentinel London care homes from April 2020 onwards found that all experienced COVID-19 outbreaks due to Omicron (BA.1) during December 2021 and January 2022, despite extensive prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure and high COVID-19 vaccination rates, including booster vaccines (>70% residents, >40% staff). Results: Detailed investigation showed that 46% (133/288) of Omicron BA.1 infections were SARS-CoV-2 reinfections. Two and three COVID-19 vaccine doses were protective against Omicron infection within 2-9 weeks of vaccination, though protection waned from 10 weeks post-vaccination. Prior infection provided additional protection in vaccinated individuals, approximately halving the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Discussion: Anti-S antibody titre showed a dose-dependent protective effect but did not fully account for the protection provided by vaccination or past infection, indicating that other mechanisms of protection are also involved.

Reinfection with new variants of SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection: a prospective observational cohort in 13 care homes in England.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the duration of protection and risk of reinfection after natural infection is crucial to planning COVID-19 vaccination for at-risk groups, including care home residents, particularly with the emergence of more transmissible variants. We report on the duration, neutralising activity, and protection against the alpha variant of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in care home residents and staff infected more than 6 months previously. METHODS: We did this prospective observational cohort surveillance in 13 care homes in Greater London, England. All staff and residents were included. Staff and residents had regular nose and throat screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR according to national guidelines, with ad hoc testing of symptomatic individuals. From January, 2021, antigen lateral flow devices were also used, but positive tests still required RT-PCR confirmation. Staff members took the swab samples for themselves and the residents. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive primary infection or reinfection in previously infected individuals, as determined by previous serological testing and screening or diagnostic RT-PCR results. Poisson regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate protective effectiveness of previous exposure. SARS-CoV-2 spike, nucleoprotein, and neutralising antibodies were assessed at multiple timepoints as part of the longitudinal follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 10 and Aug 3, 2020, we recruited and tested 1625 individuals (933 staff and 692 residents). 248 participants were lost to follow-up (123 staff and 125 residents) and 1377 participants were included in the follow-up period to Jan 31, 2021 (810 staff and 567 residents). There were 23 reinfections (ten confirmed, eight probable, five possible) in 656 previously infected individuals (366 staff and 290 residents), compared with 165 primary infections in 721 susceptible individuals (444 staff and 277 residents). Those with confirmed reinfections had no or low neutralising antibody concentration before reinfection, with boosting of titres after reinfection. Kinetics of binding and neutralising antibodies were similar in older residents and younger staff. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were rare in older residents and younger staff. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 was sustained for longer than 9 months, including against the alpha variant. Reinfection was associated with no or low neutralising antibody before reinfection, but significant boosting occurred on reinfection. FUNDING: Public Health England.

Bacteria evoke alarm behaviour in zebrafish.

When injured, fish release an alarm substance (Schreckstoff) that elicits fear in members of their shoal. Although Schreckstoff has been proposed to be produced by club cells in the skin, several observations indicate that these giant cells function primarily in immunity. Previous data indicate that the alarm substance can be isolated from mucus. Here we show that mucus, as well as bacteria, are transported from the external surface into club cells, by cytoplasmic transfer or invasion of cells, including neutrophils. The presence of bacteria inside club cells raises the possibility that the alarm substance may contain a bacterial component. Indeed, lysate from a zebrafish Staphylococcus isolate is sufficient to elicit alarm behaviour, acting in concert with a substance from fish. These results suggest that Schreckstoff, which allows one individual to unwittingly change the emotional state of the surrounding population, derives from two kingdoms and is associated with processes that protect the host from bacteria.