Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: implications for the ability of serological assays to predict immunity.
Journal
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences
Titre abrégé: medRxiv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101767986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jul 2021
07 Jul 2021
Historique:
entrez:
16
7
2021
pubmed:
17
7
2021
medline:
17
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
RESULTS
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34268524
doi: 10.1101/2021.07.02.21259939
pmc: PMC8282113
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Preprint
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI050111
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI078788
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateIn
Références
Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:
pubmed: 33112236
Immunity. 2021 Aug 10;54(8):1853-1868.e7
pubmed: 34331873
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):450-456
pubmed: 32698192
Cell Host Microbe. 2021 Mar 10;29(3):463-476.e6
pubmed: 33592168
Cell Host Microbe. 2021 May 12;29(5):819-833.e7
pubmed: 33789084
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;146(1):35-43
pubmed: 32479758
Front Med. 2020 Dec;14(6):746-751
pubmed: 33017040
N Engl J Med. 2021 May 13;384(19):1866-1868
pubmed: 33761203
Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):616-622
pubmed: 33567448
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2021 Jun;28(6):478-486
pubmed: 33981021
J Exp Med. 2020 Nov 2;217(11):
pubmed: 32692348
J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 13;223(3):389-398
pubmed: 33140086
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021 Jul;19(7):409-424
pubmed: 34075212
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Sep;41(3):483-499
pubmed: 32651106
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):622-625
pubmed: 33654292
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 6;11(1):3436
pubmed: 32632160
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Dec;5(12):1598-1607
pubmed: 33106674
mBio. 2020 Oct 16;11(5):
pubmed: 33067385
Science. 2020 Aug 21;369(6506):956-963
pubmed: 32540903
Front Immunol. 2020 Dec 18;11:610688
pubmed: 33391281
Nature. 2021 Mar;591(7851):639-644
pubmed: 33461210
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Nov 18;58(12):
pubmed: 32917729
J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 3;223(2):197-205
pubmed: 33535236
Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7867):426-431
pubmed: 34126625
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 7;384(1):80-82
pubmed: 33270381
Cell. 2021 Apr 29;184(9):2332-2347.e16
pubmed: 33761326
Clin Chem. 2020 Dec 1;66(12):1538-1547
pubmed: 32894750