Humoral immune response of patients infected by earlier lineages of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizes wild types of the most prevalent variants in Brazil

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

In the present study, serum samples of 20 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from Brazil who were infected by the earlier SARS-CoV-2 lineages B.1.1.28 and B.1.1.33, and by the variant of concern (VOC) Gamma (P.1) were tested by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT 90 ) with wild isolates of a panel of SARS-CoV-2 lineages, including B.1, Zeta, N.10, and the VOCs Gamma, Alpha, and Delta that emerged in different timeframes of the pandemic. The main objectives of the present study were to evaluate if serum of COVID-19 patients infected by earlier lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were capable to neutralize recently emerged VOCs, and if PRNT 90 is a reliable serologic method to distinguish infections caused by different SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Overall, sera collected from the day of admittance to the hospital to 21 days after diagnostic of patients infected by the two earlier lineages B.1.1.28 and B.1.1.33 presented neutralizing capacity for all challenged VOCs, including Gamma and Delta, that were the most prevalent VOCs in Brazil. Among all variants tested, Delta and N.10 presented the lowest mean of neutralizing antibody titers, and B.1.1.7, presented the highest titers. Four patients infected with Gamma, that emerged in December 2020, presented neutralizing antibodies for B.1, B.1.1.33 and B.1.1.28, its ancestor lineage. All of them had neutralizing antibodies under the level of detection for the VOC Delta. Interestingly, patients infected by B.1.1.28 presented very similar mean of neutralizing antibody titers for both B.1.1.33 and B.1.1.28. Findings presented here indicate that most patients infected in early stages of COVID-19 pandemic presented neutralizing antibodies up to 21 days after diagnostic capable to neutralize wild types of all recently emerged VOCs in Brazil, and that the PRNT 90 it is not a reliable serologic method to distinguish natural infections caused by different SARS-CoV-2 lineages.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.24.22269379: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingFor each sample, isolation was attempted in a maximum of three consecutive blind passages.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Eligible samples that tested positive for different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were submitted to virus isolation in Vero E6 or Vero CCL-81 cells at a Biosafety level 3 Laboratory, as previously described [13].
    Vero E6
    suggested: None
    Inactivated serum samples were submitted to PRNT90 in Vero CCL-81 cells in duplicate at serial 2-fold dilutions to determine 90% endpoint titers against five infectious SARS-CoV-2 reference lineages isolates.
    Vero CCL-81
    suggested: None

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.