Why the study?
Neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 hold powerful potential for clinical interventions against COVID-19, but their common genetic and biologic features remain elusive.
Public IGHV3-53/3-66 neutralizing antibodies share structural binding features and are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2, but their activity is abolished by the K417N escape mutation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Vulnerability to K417N escape warrants broader epitope strategies; leaves open human applicability of hamster protection data.
Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) to SARS-CoV-2 hold powerful potentials for clinical interventions against COVID-19 disease. However, their common genetic and biologic features remain elusive. Here we interrogate a total of 165 antibodies from eight COVID-19 patients, and find that potent nAbs from different patients have disproportionally high representation of IGHV3-53/3-66 usage, and therefore termed as public antibodies. Crystal structural comparison of these antibodies reveals they share similar angle of approach to RBD, overlap in buried surface and binding residues on RBD, and have substantial spatial clash with receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) in binding to RBD. Site-directed mutagenesis confirms these common binding features although some minor differences are found. One representative antibody, P5A-3C8, demonstrates extraordinarily protective efficacy in a golden Syrian hamster model against SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, virus escape analysis identifies a single natural mutation in RBD, namely K417N found in B.1.351 variant from South Africa, abolished the neutralizing activity of these public antibodies. The discovery of public antibodies and shared escape mutation highlight the intricate relationship between antibody response and SARS-CoV-2, and provide critical reference for the development of antibody and vaccine strategies to overcome the antigenic variation of SARS-CoV-2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: