Broad sarbecovirus neutralizing antibodies define a key site of vulnerability on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

  1. Anna Z. Wec
  2. Daniel Wrapp
  3. Andrew S. Herbert
  4. Daniel Maurer
  5. Denise Haslwanter
  6. Mrunal Sakharkar
  7. Rohit K. Jangra
  8. M. Eugenia Dieterle
  9. Asparouh Lilov
  10. Deli Huang
  11. Longping V. Tse
  12. Nicole V. Johnson
  13. Ching-Lin Hsieh
  14. Nianshuang Wang
  15. Juergen H. Nett
  16. Elizabeth Champney
  17. Irina Burnina
  18. Michael Brown
  19. Shu Lin
  20. Melanie Sinclair
  21. Carl Johnson
  22. Sarat Pudi
  23. Robert Bortz
  24. Ariel S. Wirchnianski
  25. Ethan Laudermilch
  26. Catalina Florez
  27. J. Maximilian Fels
  28. Cecilia M. O’Brien
  29. Barney S. Graham
  30. David Nemazee
  31. Dennis R. Burton
  32. Ralph S. Baric
  33. James E. Voss
  34. Kartik Chandran
  35. John M. Dye
  36. Jason S. McLellan
  37. Laura M. Walker

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Broadly protective vaccines against known and pre-emergent coronaviruses are urgently needed. Critical to their development is a deeper understanding of cross-neutralizing antibody responses induced by natural human coronavirus (HCoV) infections. Here, we mined the memory B cell repertoire of a convalescent SARS donor and identified 200 SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies that target multiple conserved sites on the spike (S) protein. A large proportion of the antibodies display high levels of somatic hypermutation and cross-react with circulating HCoVs, suggesting recall of pre-existing memory B cells (MBCs) elicited by prior HCoV infections. Several antibodies potently cross-neutralize SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, and the bat SARS-like virus WIV1 by blocking receptor attachment and inducing S1 shedding. These antibodies represent promising candidates for therapeutic intervention and reveal a new target for the rational design of pan-sarbecovirus vaccines.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.15.096511: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.15.096511v2 on bioRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.15.096511v1 on bioRxiv