ABSTRACT
Small number of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic lineages did not efficiently exhibit a neutralization profile, while single amino acid mutation in the spike protein has not been confirmed in altering viral antigenicity resulting in immune escape. To identify crucial mutations in spike protein that escape humoral immune response, we evaluated the cross-neutralization of convalescent plasmas and RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against various spike protein-based pseudoviruses. Three of 24 SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses containing different mutations in spike protein, including D614G, A475V, and E484Q, consistently showed an altered sensitivity to neutralization by convalescent plasmas. A475V and E484Q mutants are highly resistant to neutralization by mAb B38 and 2-4, suggesting that some crucial mutations in spike protein might evolve SARS-CoV-2 variants capable of escaping humoral immune response.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Amino Acid Substitution/genetics , Amino Acid Substitution/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Convalescence , Humans , Immune Evasion , Immunity, Humoral , Neutralization Tests , Protein BindingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Viral nucleic acid detection by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is the current standard method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, due to low viral load in some COVID-19 patients, false negative results from this method have been repeatedly reported. METHOD: In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of digital PCR (dPCR) in simulated samples and clinical samples with qPCR assay through a series of vigorous tests. RESULTS: The results showed that dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR especially for samples with low viral load (≤3 copies). In addition, dPCR had similar specificity as qPCR and could effectively distinguish other human coronaviruses and influenza virus from SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR in detecting the virus in the "negative" samples from recurrent COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, dPCR could serve as a powerful complement to the current qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially for the samples with extremely low viral load, such as recurrent COVID-19 patients.