Isolation of potent SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and protection from disease in a small animal model

  1. Thomas F. Rogers
  2. Fangzhu Zhao
  3. Deli Huang
  4. Nathan Beutler
  5. Alison Burns
  6. Wan-ting He
  7. Oliver Limbo
  8. Chloe Smith
  9. Ge Song
  10. Jordan Woehl
  11. Linlin Yang
  12. Robert K. Abbott
  13. Sean Callaghan
  14. Elijah Garcia
  15. Jonathan Hurtado
  16. Mara Parren
  17. Linghang Peng
  18. Sydney Ramirez
  19. James Ricketts
  20. Michael J. Ricciardi
  21. Stephen A. Rawlings
  22. Nicholas C. Wu
  23. Meng Yuan
  24. Davey M. Smith
  25. David Nemazee
  26. John R. Teijaro
  27. James E. Voss
  28. Ian A. Wilson
  29. Raiees Andrabi
  30. Bryan Briney
  31. Elise Landais
  32. Devin Sok
  33. Joseph G. Jardine
  34. Dennis R. Burton

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Antibodies produced by survivors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be leveraged to develop therapies. A first step is identifying neutralizing antibodies, which confer strong protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rogers et al. used a high-throughput pipeline to isolate and characterize monoclonal antibodies from convalescent donors. Antibodies were selected for binding to the viral spike protein, which facilitates entry into host cells by binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Most isolated antibodies bound to regions of the spike outside of the receptor binding domain (RBD); however, a larger proportion of the RBD-binding antibodies were neutralizing, with the most potent binding at a site that overlaps the ACE2 binding site. Two of the neutralizing antibodies were tested in Syrian hamsters and provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Science , this issue p. 956

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1126/science.abc7520
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.11.088674: (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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.088674v2 on bioRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.088674v1 on bioRxiv