Antibody-Dependent Complement Responses toward SARS-CoV‑2 Receptor-Binding Domain Immobilized on “Pseudovirus-like” Nanoparticles

Many aspects of innate immune responses to SARS viruses remain unclear. Of particular interest is the role of emerging neutralizing antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 in complement activation and opsonization. To overcome challenges with purified virions, here we introduce “pseudovirus-like” nanoparticles with ∼70 copies of functional recombinant RBD to map complement responses. Nanoparticles fix complement in an RBD-dependent manner in sera of all vaccinated, convalescent, and naı̈ve donors, but vaccinated and convalescent donors with the highest levels of anti-RBD antibodies show significantly higher IgG binding and higher deposition of the third complement protein (C3). The opsonization via anti-RBD antibodies is not an efficient process: on average, each bound antibody promotes binding of less than one C3 molecule. C3 deposition is exclusively through the alternative pathway. C3 molecules bind to protein deposits, but not IgG, on the nanoparticle surface. Lastly, “pseudovirus-like” nanoparticles promote complement-dependent uptake by granulocytes and monocytes in the blood of vaccinated donors with high anti-RBD titers. Using nanoparticles displaying SARS-CoV-2 proteins, we demonstrate subject-dependent differences in complement opsonization and immune recognition

Data_Sheet_1_Harmonization of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Reference Materials Using the WHO IS (NIBSC 20/136): Results and Implications.zip

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for harmonization between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology platforms and assays prior to defining appropriate correlates of protection and as well inform the development of new rapid diagnostic tests that can be used for serosurveillance as new variants of concern (VOC) emerge. We compared multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials to the WHO International Standard (WHO IS) to determine their utility as secondary standards, using an international network of laboratories with high-throughput quantitative serology assays. This enabled the comparison of quantitative results between multiple serology platforms.MethodsBetween April and December 2020, 13 well-characterized and validated SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials were recruited from six different providers to qualify as secondary standards to the WHO IS. All the samples were tested in parallel with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) 20/136 and parallel-line assays were used to calculate the relevant potency and binding antibody units.ResultsAll the samples saw varying levels of concordance between diagnostic methods at specific antigen–antibody combinations. Seven of the 12 candidate materials had high concordance for the spike-immunoglobulin G (IgG) analyte [percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between 5 and 44%].ConclusionDespite some concordance between laboratories, qualification of secondary materials to the WHO IS using arbitrary international units or binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/ml) does not provide any benefit to the reference materials overall, due to the lack of consistent agreeable international unit (IU) or BAU/ml conversions between laboratories. Secondary standards should be qualified to well-characterized reference materials, such as the WHO IS, using serology assays that are similar to the ones used for the original characterization of the WHO IS.</p