The quantitative landscape of the neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2

  1. Pranesh Padmanabhan
  2. Rajat Desikan
  3. Narendra M. Dixit

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) appear promising interventions against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Over 100 NAbs have been identified so far and several are in clinical trials. Yet, which NAbs would be the most potent remains unclear. Here, we analysed reported in vitro dose-response curves (DRCs) of >70 NAbs and estimated corresponding 50% inhibitory concentrations, slope parameters, and instantaneous inhibitory potentials ( IIPs ), presenting a comprehensive quantitative landscape of NAb responses to SARS-CoV-2. NAbs with high IIPs are likely to be potent. To assess the applicability of the landscape in vivo , we analysed available DRCs of NAbs from individual patients and found that the responses closely resembled the landscape. Further, we created virtual patient plasma samples by randomly sampling NAbs from the landscape and found that they recapitulated plasma dilution assays from convalescent patients. The landscape thus offers a facile tool for benchmarking NAbs and would aid the development of NAb-based therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.25.20201996: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data was fitted using the tool NLINFIT in MATLAB R2017b.
    MATLAB
    suggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)

    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 10.1101/2020.09.25.20201996v1 on medRxiv