Submit a comment
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of humoral immunity in COVID-19 is not fully understood, owing, in large part, to the complexity of antibodies produced in response to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is a pressing need for serology tests to assess patient-specific antibody response and predict clinical outcome.METHODS Using SARS-CoV-2 proteome and peptide microarrays, we screened 146 COVID-19 patients’ plasma samples to identify antigens and epitopes. This enabled us to develop a master epitope array and an epitope-specific agglutination assay to gauge antibody responses systematically and with high resolution.RESULTS We identified linear epitopes from the spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins and showed that the epitopes enabled higher resolution antibody profiling than the S or N protein antigen. Specifically, we found that antibody responses to the S-811–825, S-881–895, and N-156–170 epitopes negatively or positively correlated with clinical severity or patient survival. Moreover, we found that the P681H and S235F mutations associated with the coronavirus variant of concern B.1.1.7 altered the specificity of the corresponding epitopes.CONCLUSION Epitope-resolved antibody testing not only affords a high-resolution alternative to conventional immunoassays to delineate the complex humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies, but it also may potentially be used to predict clinical outcome. The epitope peptides can be readily modified to detect antibodies against variants of concern in both the peptide array and latex agglutination formats.FUNDING Ontario Research Fund (ORF) COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund, Toronto COVID-19 Action Fund, Western University, Lawson Health Research Institute, London Health Sciences Foundation, and Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario (AMOSO) Innovation Fund.
Authors
Courtney Voss, Sally Esmail, Xuguang Liu, Michael J. Knauer, Suzanne Ackloo, Tomonori Kaneko, Lori Lowes, Peter Stogios, Almagul Seitova, Ashley Hutchinson, Farhad Yusifov, Tatiana Skarina, Elena Evdokimova, Peter Loppnau, Pegah Ghiabi, Taraneh Haijan, Shanshan Zhong, Husam Abdoh, Benjamin D. Hedley, Vipin Bhayana, Claudio M. Martin, Marat Slessarev, Benjamin Chin-Yee, Douglas D. Fraser, Ian Chin-Yee, Shawn S.C. Li
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
