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

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 epitope-binding antibodies associated with immunopathology, including a non-isotype switching IgM response to a membrane protein epitope which is the strongest single immunological feature associated with severe COVID-19 to date (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 highlight a previously unrecognized coronavirus host:pathogen interaction which is potentially an upstream event in severe immunopathology and this may have implications for the ongoing medical and public health response to the pandemic. The membrane protein epitope is a promising vaccine and monoclonal antibody target which may complement anti-spike vaccination or monoclonal antibody therapies broadening immunological protection. One-Sentence SummaryUsing a novel B cell epitope discovery method we have identified antibody signatures strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 immunopathology and suggest the membrane protein is a pathological T independent antigen.

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

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.

BackgroundSerological 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. MethodsWe 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. FindingsNeutralizing 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. InterpretationThe 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

BackgroundSero-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. MethodsFive 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. ResultsSeroprevalence 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. ConclusionsFive 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

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.

Diagnostic performance of the combined nasal and throat swab in patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19

BackgroundAccurate diagnosis in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential to guide treatment and limit spread of the virus. The combined nasal and throat swab is used widely, but its diagnostic performance is uncertain. MethodsIn a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the combined nasal and throat swab with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in consecutive patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. Diagnostic performance of the index and serial tests was evaluated for a primary outcome of confirmed or probable COVID-19, and a secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. The diagnosis was adjudicated by a panel, who recorded clinical, laboratory and radiological features blinded to the test results. ResultsWe enrolled 1,369 consecutive patients (68 [53-80] years, 47% women) who underwent a total of 3,822 tests (median 2 [1-3] tests per patient). The primary outcome occurred in 36% (496/1,369), of whom 65% (323/496) and 35% (173/496) had confirmed and probable COVID-19, respectively. The index test was positive in 255/496 (51%) patients with the primary outcome, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 51.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.8 to 54.1%) and 99.5% (95% CI 99.0 to 99.8%). Sensitivity increased in those undergoing 2, 3 or 4 tests to 60.1% (95% CI 56.7 to 63.4%), 68.3% (95% CI 64.0 to 72.3%) and 77.6% (95% CI 72.7 to 81.9%), respectively. The sensitivity of the index test was 78.9% (95% CI 74.4 to 83.2%) for the secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. ConclusionsIn patients admitted to hospital, a single combined nasal and throat swab with RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 has excellent specificity, but limited diagnostic sensitivity for COVID-19. Diagnostic performance is significantly improved by repeated testing.