1. Epidemiology and Global Health
  2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Download icon

Reduced antibody cross-reactivity following infection with B.1.1.7 than with parental SARS-CoV-2 strains

  1. Nikhil Faulkner
  2. Kevin W Ng
  3. Mary Y Wu
  4. Ruth Harvey
  5. Marios Margaritis
  6. Stavroula Paraskevopoulou
  7. Catherine Houlihan
  8. Saira Hussain
  9. Maria Greco
  10. William Bolland
  11. Scott Warchal
  12. Judith Heaney
  13. Hannah Rickman
  14. Moria Spyer
  15. Daniel Frampton
  16. Matthew Byott
  17. Tulio de Oliveira
  18. Alex Sigal
  19. Svend Kjaer
  20. Charles Swanton
  21. Sonia Gandhi
  22. Rupert Beale
  23. Steve j Gamblin
  24. John W McCauley
  25. Rodney Stuart Daniels
  26. Michael Howell
  27. David Bauer
  28. Eleni Nastouli
  29. SAFER Investigators
  30. George Kassiotis  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  2. University College London, United Kingdom
  3. University College London Hospital, United Kingdom
  4. University of KwaZulu-Natal,SA, South Africa
  5. Africa Health Research Institute, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  6. The Francis Crick Insitute, United Kingdom
Research Article
  • Cited 12
  • Views 1,619
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e69317 doi: 10.7554/eLife.69317

Abstract

Background: The degree of heterotypic immunity induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains is a major determinant of the spread of emerging variants and the success of vaccination campaigns, but remains incompletely understood.

Methods: We examined the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 (Alpha) that arose in the United Kingdom and spread globally. We determined titres of spike glycoprotein-binding antibodies and authentic virus neutralising antibodies induced by B.1.1.7 infection to infer homotypic and heterotypic immunity.

Results: Antibodies elicited by B.1.1.7 infection exhibited significantly reduced recognition and neutralisation of parental strains or of the South Africa variant B.1.351 (Beta) than of the infecting variant. The drop in cross-reactivity was significantly more pronounced following B.1.1.7 than parental strain infection.

Conclusions: The results indicate that heterotypic immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 variants is asymmetric.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nikhil Faulkner

    Retroviral Immunology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kevin W Ng

    Retroviral Immunology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1635-6768
  3. Mary Y Wu

    High Throughput Screening STP, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2074-6171
  4. Ruth Harvey

    Worldwide Influenza Centre, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Marios Margaritis

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Stavroula Paraskevopoulou

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Catherine Houlihan

    University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Saira Hussain

    RNA Virus Replication Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Maria Greco

    RNA Virus Replication Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. William Bolland

    Retroviral Immunology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Scott Warchal

    High Throughput Screening STP, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Judith Heaney

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Hannah Rickman

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Moria Spyer

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Daniel Frampton

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Matthew Byott

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Tulio de Oliveira

    School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal,SA, Durban, South Africa
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Alex Sigal

    School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, Africa Health Research Institute, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8571-2004
  19. Svend Kjaer

    Structural Biology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9767-8683
  20. Charles Swanton

    Structural Biology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Sonia Gandhi

    Neurodegradation Biology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Rupert Beale

    Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6705-8560
  23. Steve j Gamblin

    Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. John W McCauley

    Worldwide Influenza Centre, The Francis Crick Insitute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4744-6347
  25. Rodney Stuart Daniels

    Worldwide Influenza Centre, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Michael Howell

    High Throughput Screening, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. David Bauer

    RNA Virus Replication Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Eleni Nastouli

    Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. SAFER Investigators

  30. George Kassiotis

    Retroviral Immunology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    george.kassiotis@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8457-2633

Funding

Francis Crick Institute

  • Nikhil Faulkner
  • Kevin W Ng
  • Mary Y Wu
  • Ruth Harvey
  • Saira Hussain
  • Maria Greco
  • William Bolland
  • Scott Warchal
  • Svend Kjaer
  • Charles Swanton
  • Sonia Gandhi
  • Rupert Beale
  • Steve j Gamblin
  • John W McCauley
  • Rodney Stuart Daniels
  • Michael Howell
  • David Bauer
  • George Kassiotis

Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems Magdeburg

  • Alex Sigal

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Serum or plasma samples were obtained from University College London Hospitals (UCLH) (REC ref: 20/HRA/2505).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bavesh D Kana, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: March 1, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: April 11, 2021
  3. Accepted: July 26, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: July 29, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: August 9, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Faulkner et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,619
    Page views
  • 183
    Downloads
  • 12
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Andria Mousa et al.
    Research Article

    Background: Transmission of respiratory pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 depends on patterns of contact and mixing across populations. Understanding this is crucial to predict pathogen spread and the effectiveness of control efforts. Most analyses of contact patterns to date have focussed on high-income settings.

    Methods: Here, we conduct a systematic review and individual-participant meta-analysis of surveys carried out in low- and middle-income countries and compare patterns of contact in these settings to surveys previously carried out in high-income countries. Using individual-level data from 28,503 participants and 413,069 contacts across 27 surveys we explored how contact characteristics (number, location, duration and whether physical) vary across income settings.

    Results: Contact rates declined with age in high- and upper-middle-income settings, but not in low-income settings, where adults aged 65+ made similar numbers of contacts as younger individuals and mixed with all age-groups. Across all settings, increasing household size was a key determinant of contact frequency and characteristics, with low-income settings characterised by the largest, most intergenerational households. A higher proportion of contacts were made at home in low-income settings, and work/school contacts were more frequent in high-income strata. We also observed contrasting effects of gender across income-strata on the frequency, duration and type of contacts individuals made.

    Conclusions: These differences in contact patterns between settings have material consequences for both spread of respiratory pathogens, as well as the effectiveness of different non-pharmaceutical interventions.

    Funding: This work is primarily being funded by joint Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council and DFID (MR/R015600/1).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Medicine
    ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group et al.
    Research Article

    Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high density unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics.

    Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay.

    Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors.

    Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly-evolving situation.

    Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.