Structural epitope profiling identifies antibodies associated with critical COVID-19 and long COVID (preprint)

Antibodies can have beneficial, neutral, or harmful effects so resolving an antibody repertoire to its target epitopes may explain heterogeneity in susceptibility to infectious disease. However, the three-dimensional nature of antibody-epitope interactions limits discovery of important targets. We describe and experimentally validated a computational method and synthetic biology pipeline for identifying structurally stable and functionally important epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 proteome. We identify patterns of antibodies associated with immunopathology, including a non-isotype switching IgM response to a membrane protein epitope strongly associated with severe COVID-19 (adjusted OR 72.14, 95% CI: 9.71 - 1300.15). We suggest the mechanism is T independent B cell activation and identify persistence (> 1 year) of this response in individuals with long COVID particularly affected by fatigue and depression. These findings may have implications for the ongoing medical and public health response to the pandemic.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody tests have been marketed to diagnose previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and as a test of immune status. There is a lack of evidence on the performance and clinical utility of these tests. We aimed to carry out an evaluation of 14 point of care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Serum from participants with previous RT-PCR (Real-Time Polymerase chain reaction) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pre-pandemic controls were used to determine specificity and sensitivity of each POC device. Changes in sensitivity with increasing time from infection were determined on a cohort of participants. Corresponding neutralising antibody status was measured to establish whether the detection of antibodies by the POC device correlated with immune status. Paired capillary and serum samples were collected to ascertain whether POC devices performed comparably on capillary samples. Sensitivity and specificity varied between the POC devices and in general did not meet the manufacturers reported performance characteristics signifying the importance of independent evaluation of these tests. The sensitivity peaked at >20 days following symptoms onset however sensitivity of 3 POC devices evaluated at extended time points showed that sensitivity declined with time and this was particularly marked at >140 days post infection onset. This is relevant if the tests are to be used for sero-prevelence studies. Neutralising antibody data showed positive antibody results on POC devices did not necessarily confer high neutralising antibody titres and these POC devices cannot be used to determine immune status to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Comparison of paired serum and capillary results showed that there was a decline in sensitivity using capillary blood. This has implications in the utility of the test as they are designed to be used on capillary blood by the general population.

Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: implications for the ability of serological assays to predict immunity. (preprint)

Background Serological assays are being deployed to monitor antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 convalescents and vaccine recipients. There is a need to determine whether such assays can predict immunity, as antibody levels wane and viral variants emerge. Methods We measured antibodies in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients using several high-throughput serological tests and functional neutralization assays. The effects of time and spike protein sequence variation on the performance and predictive value of the various assays was assessed. Findings Neutralizing antibody titers decreased over the first few months post-infection but stabilized thereafter, at about 30% of the level observed shortly after infection. Serological assays commonly used to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 displayed a range of sensitivities that declined to varying extents over time. Quantitative measurements generated by serological assays based on the spike protein were better at predicting neutralizing antibody titers than assays based on nucleocapsid, but performance was variable and manufacturer positivity thresholds were not able to predict the presence or absence of detectable neutralizing activity. Even though there was some deterioration in correlation between serological measurements and functional neutralization activity, some assays maintained an ability to predict neutralizing titers, even against variants of concern. Interpretation The ability of high throughput serological assays to predict neutralizing antibody titers is likely crucial for evaluation of immunity at the population scale. These data will facilitate the selection of the most suitable assays as surrogates of functional neutralizing activity and suggest that such measurements may have utility in clinical practice.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays for use in epidemiological surveillance in Scotland (preprint)

Background: Sero-surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to monitoring levels of population exposure and informing public health responses, but may be influenced by variability in performance between available assays. Methods: Five commercial immunoassays and a neutralising activity assay were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in routine primary care and paediatric samples collected during the first wave of the pandemic in NHS Lothian, Scotland as part of ongoing surveillance efforts. For each assay, sensitivity and specificity was calculated relative to consensus results and neutralising activity. Quantitative correlation was performed between serological and neutralising titres. Results: Seroprevalence ranged from 3.4-7.3 % in primary care patients and 3-5.9 % in paediatric patients according to different immunoassays. Neutralising activity was detectable in 2.8 % and 1.3 % respectively. Relative assay performance changed depending on comparison to immunoassay consensus versus neutralising activity and qualititative versus quantitative agreement. Cross-reactivity with endemic seasonal coronaviruses was confirmed by neutralising assay in false positives for one immunoassay. Presence of false positives for another assay was found specifically in paediatric but not adult samples. Conclusions: Five serological assays show variable accuracy when applied to the general population, impacting seroprevalence estimates. Assay performance may also vary in detection of protective neutralising antibody levels. These aspects should be considered in assay selection and interpretation in epidemiological studies.

Absence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity in pre-pandemic sera from individuals with recent seasonal coronavirus infection (preprint)

Cross-reactive immune responses elicited by seasonal coronaviruses might impact SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and disease outcomes. We measured neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 in pre-pandemic sera from patients with prior PCR-confirmed seasonal coronavirus infection. While neutralizing activity against seasonal coronaviruses was detected in nearly all sera, cross-reactive neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 was undetectable.

Longitudinal analysis of clinical serology assay performance and neutralising antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents (preprint)

Abstract Objectives:To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study. (preprint)

ObjectivesTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract (URT) samples from hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. MethodsAll URT RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7th of February and 19th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All URT RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of negative and positive results. For those who were tested twice or more but never received a positive result, case records were reviewed, and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 allocated based on clinical features, discharge diagnosis, and radiology and haematology results. For those who had negative URT RT-PCR tests but a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, respiratory samples were retested using a multiplex respiratory panel, a second SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, and a human RNase P control. ResultsCompared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity of an initial URT RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). Two consecutive URT RT-PCR tests increased sensitivity to 90.6% (CI 88.0-92.7%). A further 2.2% and 0.9% of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 were positive on a third and fourth test. ConclusionsThe sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of an URT sample in hospitalised patients is 82.2%. Sensitivity increases to 90.6% when patients are tested twice. A proportion of cases with clinically defined COVID-19 never test positive on URT RT-PCR despite repeated testing.