Simultaneous evaluation of antibodies that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 variants via multiplex assay
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) is both the principal target of neutralizing antibodies and one of the most rapidly evolving domains, which can result in the emergence of immune escape mutations, limiting the effectiveness of vaccines and antibody therapeutics. To facilitate surveillance, we developed a rapid, high-throughput, multiplex assay able to assess the inhibitory response of antibodies to 24 RBD natural variants simultaneously. We demonstrate how this assay can be implemented as a rapid surrogate assay for functional cell-based serological methods to measure the SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing capacity of antibodies at the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2–RBD (ACE2-RBD) interface. We describe the enhanced affinity of RBD variants N439K, S477N, Q493L, S494P, and N501Y to the ACE2 receptor and demonstrate the ability of this assay to bridge a major gap for SARS-CoV-2 research, informing selection of complementary monoclonal antibody candidates and the rapid identification of immune escape to emerging RBD variants following vaccination or natural infection.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.20.21254037: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics statement: The study protocols were approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee and all associated procedures were carried out in accordance with approved guidelines.
Consent: All participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.20.21254037: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics statement: The study protocols were approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee and all associated procedures were carried out in accordance with approved guidelines.
Consent: All participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
