SARS-CoV-2 variants resist antibody neutralization and broaden host ACE2 usage

  1. Ruoke Wang
  2. Qi Zhang
  3. Jiwan Ge
  4. Wenlin Ren
  5. Rui Zhang
  6. Jun Lan
  7. Bin Ju
  8. Bin Su
  9. Fengting Yu
  10. Peng Chen
  11. Huiyu Liao
  12. Yingmei Feng
  13. Xuemei Li
  14. Xuanling Shi
  15. Zheng Zhang
  16. Fujie Zhang
  17. Qiang Ding
  18. Tong Zhang
  19. Xinquan Wang
  20. Linqi Zhang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

New SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge from the current global pandemic, some of which can replicate faster and with greater transmissibility and pathogenicity. In particular, UK501Y.V1 identified in UK, SA501Y.V2 in South Africa, and BR501Y.V3 in Brazil are raising serious concerns as they spread quickly and contain spike protein mutations that may facilitate escape from current antibody therapies and vaccine protection. Here, we constructed a panel of 28 SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses bearing single or combined mutations found in the spike protein of these three variants, as well as additional nine mutations that within or close by the major antigenic sites in the spike protein identified in the GISAID database. These pseudoviruses were tested against a panel of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including some approved for emergency use to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, and convalescent patient plasma collected early in the pandemic. SA501Y.V2 pseudovirus was the most resistant, in magnitude and breadth, against mAbs and convalescent plasma, followed by BR501Y.V3, and then UK501Y.V1. This resistance hierarchy corresponds with Y144del and 242-244del mutations in the N-terminal domain as well as K417N/T, E484K and N501Y mutations in the receptor binding domain (RBD). Crystal structural analysis of RBD carrying triple K417N-E484K-N501Y mutations found in SA501Y.V2 bound with mAb P2C-1F11 revealed a molecular basis for antibody neutralization and escape. SA501Y.V2 and BR501Y.V3 also acquired substantial ability to use mouse and mink ACE2 for entry. Taken together, our results clearly demonstrate major antigenic shifts and potentially broadening the host range of SA501Y.V2 and BR501Y.V3, which pose serious challenges to our current antibody therapies and vaccine protection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.09.434497: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Materials and Methods:
    Methods
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.09.434497 on bioRxiv