Quantatitive Analysis of Conserved Sites on the SARS-CoV-2 Receptor-Binding Domain to Promote Development of Universal SARS-Like Coronavirus Vaccines

  1. Siling Wang
  2. Dinghui Wu
  3. Hualong Xiong
  4. Juan Wang
  5. Zimin Tang
  6. Zihao Chen
  7. Yizhen Wang
  8. Yali Zhang
  9. Dong Ying
  10. Xue Lin
  11. Chang Liu
  12. Shaoqi Guo
  13. Weikun Tian
  14. Yajie Lin
  15. Xiaoping Zhang
  16. Quan Yuan
  17. Hai Yu
  18. Tianying Zhang
  19. Zizheng Zheng
  20. Ningshao Xia

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Although vaccines have been successfully developed and approved against SARS-CoV-2, it is still valuable to perform studies on conserved antigenic sites for preventing possible pandemic-risk of other SARS-like coronavirus in the future and prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants. By antibodies obtained from convalescent COVID-19 individuals, receptor binding domain (RBD) were identified as immunodominant neutralizing domain that efficiently elicits neutralizing antibody response with on-going affinity mature. Moreover, we succeeded to define a quantitative antigenic map of neutralizing sites within SARS-CoV-2 RBD, and found that sites S2, S3 and S4 (new-found site) are conserved sites and determined as subimmunodominant sites, putatively due to their less accessibility than SARS-CoV-2 unique sites. P10-6G3, P07-4D10 and P05-6H7, respectively targeting S2, S3 and S4, are relatively rare antibodies that also potently neutralizes SARS-CoV, and the last mAbs performing neutralization without blocking S protein binding to receptor. Further, we have tried to design some RBDs to improve the immunogenicity of conserved sites. Our studies, focusing on conserved antigenic sites of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, provide insights for promoting development of universal SARS-like coronavirus vaccines therefore enhancing our pandemic preparedness.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.10.439161: (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: 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 10.1101/2021.04.10.439161v1 on bioRxiv