Quantitative and Qualitative Difference in Antibody Response against Omicron and Ancestral SARS-CoV-2 after Third and Fourth Vaccination

Waning immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of variants, especially of the most distant variant, Omicron, affect titers of neutralizing antibodies in the sera of vaccinated individuals. Thus, two vaccinations with the mRNA vaccine BNT162b fail to induce neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant. A first booster vaccination increases Omicron-RBD-binding IgG and IgA and neutralizing capacity. In comparison, the Wuhan isolate titers of the Omicron variant binding antibodies are 8.5 lower. After a third vaccination, induction of Omicron-RBD- and Wuhan-RBD-binding antibodies follows the same kinetic. Five to six months after the third vaccination, there are still Omicron-RBD-binding antibodies detectable, but 35.9 percent of the analyzed sera fail to neutralize the Omicron variant, while all sera efficiently neutralize the Delta isolate. In the case of the Wuhan-RBD, a significantly larger number of stable antigen–antibody complexes is formed than in Omicron-RBD. A fourth vaccination with mRNA-1273 temporarily restores levels of Omicron-, Delta- and Wuhan-specific antibodies. Comparing different booster strategies revealed that the breadth of the immune response is not affected by the vaccination regimen. Taken together, these data indicate that booster vaccinations (third and fourth dose) increase the breadth of the immune response, but there is a qualitative difference of antibodies with respect to the stability of antigen–antibody complexes and persistence of antibody titers

Persistence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles for up to 37 days in patients with mild COVID-19

BACKGROUND: People suffering from COVID-19 are typically considered non-infectious 14 days after diagnosis if symptoms have disappeared for at least 48 h. We describe three patients who independently acquired their infection. These three patients experienced mild COVID-19 and completely recovered symptomatically within 10 days, but remained PCR-positive in deep pharyngeal samples for at least 38 days. We attempted to isolate virus from pharyngeal swabs to investigate whether these patients still carried infectious virus. METHODS: Infectious virus was amplified in Vero E6 cells and characterized by electron microscopy and WGS. The immune response was investigated by ELISA and peptide arrays. RESULTS: In all three cases, infectious and replication-competent virus was isolated and amplified in Vero E6 cells. Virus replication was detected by RT-PCR and immunofluorescence microscopy. Electron microscopy confirmed the formation of intact SARS-CoV-2 particles. For a more detailed analysis, all three isolates were characterized by whole-genome sequencing (WGS). The sequence data revealed that the isolates belonged to the 20A or 20C clade, and two mutations in ORF8 were identified among other mutations that could be relevant for establishing a long-term infection. Characterization of the humoral immune response in comparison to patients that had fully recovered from mild COVID-19 revealed a lack of antibodies binding to sequential epitopes of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) for the long-term infected patients. CONCLUSION: Thus, a small portion of COVID-19 patients displays long-term infectivity and termination of quarantine periods after 14 days, without PCR-based testing, should be reconsidered critically

Analysis of BNT162b2- and CVnCoV-elicited sera and of convalescent sera toward SARS-CoV-2 viruses

BACKGROUND: The mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer) and the vaccine candidate CVnCoV (Curevac) each encode a stabilized spike protein of SARS-CoV2 as antigen but differ with respect to the nature of the mRNA (modified versus unmodified nucleotides) and the mRNA amount (30 μg versus 12 μg RNA). This study characterizes antisera elicited by these two vaccines in comparison to convalescent sera. METHODS: Sera from BNT162b2 vaccinated healthcare workers, and sera from participants of a phase I trial vaccinated with 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12 μg CVnCoV and convalescent sera from hospitalized patients were analyzed by ELISA, neutralization tests, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and peptide arrays. RESULTS: BNT162b2-elicited sera and convalescent sera have a higher titer of spike-RBD-specific antibodies and neutralizing antibodies as compared to the CVnCoV-elicited sera. For all analyzed sera a reduction in binding and neutralizing antibodies was found for the lineage B.1.351 variant of concern. SPR analyses revealed that the CVnCoV-elicited sera have a lower fraction of slow-dissociating antibodies. Accordingly, the CVnCoV sera almost fail to compete with the spike-ACE2 interaction. The significance of common VOC mutations K417N, E484K, or N501Y focused on linear epitopes was analyzed using a peptide array approach. The peptide arrays showed a strong difference between convalescent sera and vaccine-elicited sera. Specifically, the linear epitope at position N501 was affected by the mutation and elucidates the escape of viral variants to antibodies against this linear epitope. CONCLUSION: These data reveal differences in titer, neutralizing capacity, and affinity of the antibodies between BNT162b2- and CVnCoV-elicited sera, which could contribute to the apparent differences in vaccine efficacy

Comparative Investigation of Methods for Analysis of SARS-CoV-2-Spike-Specific Antisera

In light of an increasing number of vaccinated and convalescent individuals, there is a major need for the development of robust methods for the quantification of neutralizing antibodies; although, a defined correlate of protection is still missing. Sera from hospitalized COVID-19 patients suffering or not suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were comparatively analyzed by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and pseudotype-based neutralization assays to quantify their neutralizing capacity. The two neutralization assays showed comparable data. In case of the non-ARDS sera, there was a distinct correlation between the data from the neutralization assays on the one hand, and enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA), as well as biophysical analyses, on the other hand. As such, surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based assays for quantification of binding antibodies or analysis of the stability of the antigen–antibody interaction and inhibition of syncytium formation, determined by cell fusion assays, were performed. In the case of ARDS sera, which are characterized by a significantly higher fraction of RBD-binding IgA antibodies, there is a clear correlation between the neutralization assays and the ELISA data. In contrast to this, a less clear correlation between the biophysical analyses on the one hand and ELISAs and neutralization assays on the other hand was observed, which might be explained by the heterogeneity of the antibodies. To conclude, for less complex immune sera—as in cases of non-ARDS sera—combinations of titer quantification by ELISA with inhibition of syncytium formation, SPR-based analysis of antibody binding, determination of the stability of the antigen–antibody complex, and competition of the RBD-ACE2 binding represent alternatives to the classic PRNT for analysis of the neutralizing potential of SARS-CoV-2-specific sera, without the requirement for a BSL3 facility