Phage ImmunoPrecipitation Sequencing (PhIP-Seq): The Promise of High Throughput Serology.

Phage ImmunoPrecipitation Sequencing (PhIP-Seq) is a high throughput serological technology that is revolutionizing the manner in which we track antibody profiles. In this review, we mainly focus on its application to viral infectious diseases. Through the pull-down of patient antibodies using peptide-tile-expressing T7 bacteriophages and detection using next-generation sequencing (NGS), PhIP-Seq allows the determination of antibody repertoires against peptide targets from hundreds of proteins and pathogens. It differs from conventional serological techniques in that PhIP-Seq does not require protein expression and purification. It also allows for the testing of many samples against the whole virome. PhIP-Seq has been successfully applied in many infectious disease investigations concerning seroprevalence, risk factors, time trends, etiology of disease, vaccinology, and emerging pathogens. Despite the inherent limitations of this technology, we foresee the future expansion of PhIP-Seq in both investigative studies and tracking of current, emerging, and novel viruses. Following the review of PhIP-Seq technology, its limitations, and applications, we recommend that PhIP-Seq be integrated into national surveillance programs and be used in conjunction with molecular techniques to support both One Health and pandemic preparedness efforts.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of asymptomatic carriers and transmission risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among household and non-household contacts remains unclear. In Singapore, extensive contact tracing by the Ministry of Health for every diagnosed COVID-19 case, and legally enforced quarantine and intensive health surveillance of close contacts provided a rare opportunity to determine asymptomatic attack rates and SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors among community close contacts of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved all close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore, identified between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020. Household contacts were defined as individuals who shared a residence with the index COVID-19 case. Non-household close contacts were defined as those who had contact for at least 30 min within 2 m of the index case. All patients with COVID-19 in Singapore received inpatient treatment, with access restricted to health-care staff. All close contacts were quarantined for 14 days with thrice-daily symptom monitoring via telephone. Symptomatic contacts underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Secondary clinical attack rates were derived from the prevalence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 among close contacts. Consenting contacts underwent serology testing and detailed exposure risk assessment. Bayesian modelling was used to estimate the prevalence of missed diagnoses and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive cases. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020, 7770 close contacts (1863 household contacts, 2319 work contacts, and 3588 social contacts) linked to 1114 PCR-confirmed index cases were identified. Symptom-based PCR testing detected 188 COVID-19 cases, and 7582 close contacts completed quarantine without a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Among 7518 (96·8%) of the 7770 close contacts with complete data, the secondary clinical attack rate was 5·9% (95% CI 4·9-7·1) for 1779 household contacts, 1·3% (0·9-1·9) for 2231 work contacts, and 1·3% (1·0-1·7) for 3508 social contacts. Bayesian analysis of serology and symptom data obtained from 1150 close contacts (524 household contacts, 207 work contacts, and 419 social contacts) estimated that a symptom-based PCR-testing strategy missed 62% (95% credible interval 55-69) of COVID-19 diagnoses, and 36% (27-45) of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were asymptomatic. Sharing a bedroom (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 5·38 [95% CI 1·82-15·84]; p=0·0023) and being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (7·86 [3·86-16·02]; p<0·0001) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household contacts. Among non-household contacts, exposure to more than one case (multivariable OR 3·92 [95% CI 2·07-7·40], p<0·0001), being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (2·67 [1·21-5·88]; p=0·015), and sharing a vehicle with an index case (3·07 [1·55-6·08]; p=0·0013) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Among both household and non-household contacts, indirect contact, meal sharing, and lavatory co-usage were not independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. INTERPRETATION: Targeted community measures should include physical distancing and minimising verbal interactions. Testing of all household contacts, including asymptomatic individuals, is warranted. FUNDING: Ministry of Health of Singapore, National Research Foundation of Singapore, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody responses and duration of immunity: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have found different waning rates of neutralising antibodies compared with binding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The impact of neutralising antibody waning rate at the individual patient level on the longevity of immunity remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the peak levels and dynamics of neutralising antibody waning and IgG avidity maturation over time, and correlate this with clinical parameters, cytokines, and T-cell responses. METHODS: We did a longitudinal study of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 up to day 180 post-symptom onset by monitoring changes in neutralising antibody levels using a previously validated surrogate virus neutralisation test. Changes in antibody avidities and other immune markers at different convalescent stages were determined and correlated with clinical features. Using a machine learning algorithm, temporal change in neutralising antibody levels was classified into five groups and used to predict the longevity of neutralising antibody-mediated immunity. FINDINGS: We approached 517 patients for participation in the study, of whom 288 consented for outpatient follow-up and collection of serial blood samples. 164 patients were followed up and had adequate blood samples collected for analysis, with a total of 546 serum samples collected, including 128 blood samples taken up to 180 days post-symptom onset. We identified five distinctive patterns of neutralising antibody dynamics as follows: negative, individuals who did not, at our intervals of sampling, develop neutralising antibodies at the 30% inhibition level (19 [12%] of 164 patients); rapid waning, individuals who had varying levels of neutralising antibodies from around 20 days after symptom onset, but seroreverted in less than 180 days (44 [27%] of 164 patients); slow waning, individuals who remained neutralising antibody-positive at 180 days post-symptom onset (46 [28%] of 164 patients); persistent, although with varying peak neutralising antibody levels, these individuals had minimal neutralising antibody decay (52 [32%] of 164 patients); and delayed response, a small group that showed an unexpected increase of neutralising antibodies during late convalescence (at 90 or 180 days after symptom onset; three [2%] of 164 patients). Persistence of neutralising antibodies was associated with disease severity and sustained level of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors. By contrast, T-cell responses were similar among the different neutralising antibody dynamics groups. On the basis of the different decay dynamics, we established a prediction algorithm that revealed a wide range of neutralising antibody longevity, varying from around 40 days to many decades. INTERPRETATION: Neutralising antibody response dynamics in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 vary greatly, and prediction of immune longevity can only be accurately determined at the individual level. Our findings emphasise the importance of public health and social measures in the ongoing pandemic outbreak response, and might have implications for longevity of immunity after vaccination. FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Biomedical Research Council, and A*STAR, Singapore.

A SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test based on antibody-mediated blockage of ACE2-spike protein-protein interaction.

A robust serological test to detect neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is urgently needed to determine not only the infection rate, herd immunity and predicted humoral protection, but also vaccine efficacy during clinical trials and after large-scale vaccination. The current gold standard is the conventional virus neutralization test requiring live pathogen and a biosafety level 3 laboratory. Here, we report a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test that detects total immunodominant neutralizing antibodies targeting the viral spike (S) protein receptor-binding domain in an isotype- and species-independent manner. Our simple and rapid test is based on antibody-mediated blockage of the interaction between the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor protein and the receptor-binding domain. The test, which has been validated with two cohorts of patients with COVID-19 in two different countries, achieves 99.93% specificity and 95-100% sensitivity, and differentiates antibody responses to several human coronaviruses. The surrogate virus neutralization test does not require biosafety level 3 containment, making it broadly accessible to the wider community for both research and clinical applications.

Serological differentiation between COVID-19 and SARS infections.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by SARS-CoV-2, multiple diagnostic tests are required for acute disease diagnosis, contact tracing, monitoring asymptomatic infection rates and assessing herd immunity. While PCR remains the frontline test of choice in the acute diagnostic setting, serological tests are urgently needed. Unlike PCR tests which are highly specific, cross-reactivity is a major challenge for COVID-19 antibody tests considering there are six other coronaviruses known to infect humans. SARS-CoV is genetically related to SARS-CoV-2 sharing approximately 80% sequence identity and both belong to the species SARS related coronavirus in the genus Betacoronavirus of family Coronaviridae. We developed and compared the performance of four different serological tests to comprehensively assess the cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and SARS patient sera. There is significant cross-reactivity when N protein of either virus is used. The S1 or RBD regions from the spike (S) protein offers better specificity. Amongst the different platforms, capture ELISA performed best. We found that SARS survivors all have significant levels of antibodies remaining in their blood 17 years after infection. Anti-N antibodies waned more than anti-RBD antibodies, and the latter is known to play a more important role in providing protective immunity.