Memory B cell repertoire for recognition of evolving SARS-CoV-2 spike

  1. Pei Tong
  2. Avneesh Gautam
  3. Ian Windsor
  4. Meghan Travers
  5. Yuezhou Chen
  6. Nicholas Garcia
  7. Noah B. Whiteman
  8. Lindsay G.A. McKay
  9. Felipe J.N. Lelis
  10. Shaghayegh Habibi
  11. Yongfei Cai
  12. Linda J. Rennick
  13. W. Paul Duprex
  14. Kevin R. McCarthy
  15. Christy L. Lavine
  16. Teng Zuo
  17. Junrui Lin
  18. Adam Zuiani
  19. Jared Feldman
  20. Elizabeth A. MacDonald
  21. Blake M. Hauser
  22. Anthony Griffths
  23. Michael S. Seaman
  24. Aaron G. Schmidt
  25. Bing Chen
  26. Donna Neuberg
  27. Goran Bajic
  28. Stephen C. Harrison
  29. Duane R. Wesemann

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

Memory B cell reserves can generate protective antibodies against repeated SARS-CoV-2 infections, but with an unknown reach from original infection to antigenically drifted variants. We charted memory B cell receptor-encoded monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) from 19 COVID-19 convalescent subjects against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and found 7 major mAb competition groups against epitopes recurrently targeted across individuals. Inclusion of published and newly determined structures of mAb-S complexes identified corresponding epitopic regions. Group assignment correlated with cross-CoV-reactivity breadth, neutralization potency, and convergent antibody signatures. mAbs that competed for binding the original S isolate bound differentially to S variants, suggesting the protective importance of otherwise-redundant recognition. The results furnish a global atlas of the S-specific memory B cell repertoire and illustrate properties conferring robustness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.10.434840: (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: 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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 44 and 39. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.10.434840 on bioRxiv