Protection against reinfection with D614- or G614-SARS-CoV-2 isolates in hamsters

  1. Marco Brustolin
  2. Jordi Rodon
  3. María Luisa Rodríguez de la Concepción
  4. Carlos Ávila-Nieto
  5. Guillermo Cantero
  6. Mónica Pérez
  7. Nigeer Te
  8. Marc Noguera-Julián
  9. Víctor Guallar
  10. Alfonso Valencia
  11. Núria Roca
  12. Nuria Izquierdo-Useros
  13. Julià Blanco
  14. Bonaventura Clotet
  15. Albert Bensaid
  16. Jorge Carrillo
  17. Júlia Vergara-Alert
  18. Joaquim Segalés

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 have already been documented in humans, although its real incidence is currently unknown. Besides having great impact on public health, this phenomenon raises the question if immunity generated by a single infection is sufficient to provide sterilizing/protective immunity to a subsequent SARS-CoV-2 re-exposure. The Golden Syrian hamster is a manageable animal model to explore immunological mechanisms able to counteract COVID-19, as it recapitulates pathological aspects of mild to moderately affected patients. Here, we report that SARS-CoV-2-inoculated hamsters resolve infection in the upper and lower respiratory tracts within seven days upon inoculation with the Cat01 (G614) SARS-CoV-2 isolate. Three weeks after primary challenge, and despite high titers of neutralizing antibodies, half of the animals were susceptible to reinfection by both identical (Cat01, G614) and variant (WA/1, D614) SARS-CoV-2 isolates. However, upon re-inoculation, only nasal tissues were transiently infected with much lower viral replication than those observed after the first inoculation. These data indicate that a primary SARS-CoV-2 infection is not sufficient to elicit a sterilizing immunity in hamster models but protects against lung disease.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.07.425729: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethics statement: Animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Welfare Committee of the Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (CEEA-IRTA, registration number CEEA 188/2020) and by the Ethical Commission of Animal Experimentation of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia (registration number FUE-2020-01589810) and conducted by certified staff.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableStudy design: A total of thirty-four 5-6-week-old male and female golden Syrian hamsters (Charles River) were used in this study (Figure 5).
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Evaluation of the humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 by ELISA: The level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in hamster serum samples was determined using a sandwich-ELISA.
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Nunc MaxiSorp ELISA plates were coated overnight at 4ºC with 50 μL of capture antibody (anti-6xHis antibody, clone HIS.H8; ThermoFisher Scientific) at 2 μg/mL in PBS.
    anti-6xHis
    suggested: None
    As secondary antibody, an HRP-conjugated Goat anti-hamster IgG (H+L) (Jackson Immunoresearch) at 1/20,000 dilution in blocking buffer was used.
    anti-hamster IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    The mixtures were then transferred to Vero E6 cell monolayers (ATCC CRL-1586) and cultured for 3 days at 37 C and 5% CO2.
    Vero E6
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses were completed using GraphPad Prism 8.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.01.07.425729v1 on bioRxiv