Research Article

Cross-reactive antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Amsterdam UMC, Netherlands
Center for Immunology of Viral, Auto-immune, Hematological and Bacterial Diseases (IMVA-HB/IDMIT), France
Center for Experimental Molecular Medicine, AMC, Netherlands
National Institute for Public Health and The Environment (RIVM), Netherlands
Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD), Netherlands
Tergooi Hospital, Netherlands
University of Paris, France
Department of Medical Microbiology & Infection Prevention, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Netherlands
The University of Melbourne, Australia

Nov 23, 2021

Open access
Copyright information

Abstract
Editor's evaluation
Introduction
Results
Discussion
Materials and methods
Data availability
References
Article and author information
Metrics

Abstract

Current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are losing efficacy against emerging variants and may not protect against future novel coronavirus outbreaks, emphasizing the need for more broadly protective vaccines. To inform the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine, we investigated the presence and specificity of cross-reactive antibodies against the spike (S) proteins of human coronaviruses (hCoV) after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We found an 11- to 123-fold increase in antibodies binding to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV as well as a 2- to 4-fold difference in antibodies binding to seasonal hCoVs in COVID-19 convalescent sera compared to pre-pandemic healthy donors, with the S2 subdomain of the S protein being the main target for cross-reactivity. In addition, we detected cross-reactive antibodies to all hCoV S proteins after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in macaques and humans, with higher responses for hCoV more closely related to SARS-CoV-2. These findings support the feasibility of and provide guidance for development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

Editor's evaluation

To develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine, the authors investigated the presence and specificity of cross-reactive antibodies against the spike proteins of human coronaviruses after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination and quantified cross-reactive antibodies.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70330.sa0

Introduction

One and a half year after the emergence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), the pandemic is still a major global issue with unprecedented consequences on healthcare systems and economies. Following the rapid initiation of many COVID-19 vaccine studies, the first vaccines are already FDA/EMA approved and mass vaccination campaigns are rolled out to hopefully soon subdue this pandemic (Polack et al., 2020; Baden et al., 2021; Voysey et al., 2021; Sadoff et al., 2021). However, these vaccines show reduced efficacy against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine breakthrough infections are frequently reported (Madhi et al., 2021; Lopez Bernal et al., 2021; Kustin et al., 2021; Hacisuleyman et al., 2021). To anticipate emerging variants, more broadly protective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are desirable. However, the ultimate goal should be a pan-coronavirus vaccine that would be able to induce broad immunity and protection against multiple coronaviruses, thereby preparing us for future outbreaks.

New coronaviruses that infect humans (hCoVs) emerge frequently, and SARS-CoV-2 is the fifth to be discovered in less than two decades, bringing the total up to seven (Kahn and McIntosh, 2005). These include the seasonal betacoronaviruses hCoV-OC43 and hCoV-HKU1 as well as alphacoronaviruses hCoV-NL63 and hCoV-229E, which usually cause mild respiratory symptoms and account for approximately 5–30% of common colds during the winter season (Zhu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). In contrast, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV are far more pathogenic and led to epidemics in 2003 and 2013–2015, respectively (da Costa et al., 2020; de Wit et al., 2016). The currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 is less pathogenic compared to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, resulting in mild flu-like symptoms in the majority of patients, while only a small group of patients develop (bilateral) pneumonia that can rapidly deteriorate in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (Tabata et al., 2020). Despite the lower pathogenicity compared to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, the high infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 results in large numbers of hospitalizations and deaths worldwide.

The majority of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are based on the spike (S) glycoprotein, a homotrimeric glycoprotein that is present on the surface of all coronaviruses and is the main target of protective antibodies. The S protein plays a pivotal role in viral entry and consists of an S1 subdomain including the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and an S2 subdomain containing the fusion peptide (Wrapp et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020). The S protein of SARS-CoV-2 is most closely related to the S protein of SARS-CoV (~75% amino acid sequence identity), shows less similarity to MERS-CoV S protein (~50% identity), and is more distinct from the S proteins of the seasonal hCoVs (~25–30% identity) (Lu et al., 2020; Barnes et al., 2020). Although this sequence identity is considered low from the perspective of eliciting cross-reactive antibodies by vaccination, several studies observed cross-reactivity of COVID-19 sera against other hCoVs (Westerhuis et al., 2020; Dugas et al., 2021; Ng et al., 2020; Aydillo et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021). In addition, the isolation and engineering of broader hCoV monoclonal antibodies have been reported (Wec et al., 2020; Rappazzo et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020).

In this study, we identify broad hCoV antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We identify the S2 subdomain as a prominent target for cross-reactive antibodies and demonstrate that cynomolgus macaques vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 S protein nanoparticle vaccine elicit detectable antibody responses to other hCoVs. These results will guide the development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine.

Results

Convalescent COVID-19 sera contain robust IgG responses to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein

Sera from 50 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, aged 22–75 years, who suffered from a range of COVID-19 disease severities were obtained 4–6 weeks after symptom onset (Supplementary file 1). A custom Luminex assay was used to measure IgG antibody levels to the prefusion-stabilized trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in these convalescent COVID-19 sera and compared to pre-pandemic healthy donor sera.

Sera from convalescent COVID-19 patients showed 990-fold higher antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 S protein compared to pre-pandemic healthy donor sera (median 3.8 log₁₀ vs. 0.8 log₁₀ median fluorescent intensity [MFI], p<0.0001) (Figure 1a). This is in line with a positive serological response in all but one of the participants using the commercially available WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 RBD total immunoglobulin serum ELISA (Figure 1a and Supplementary file 1). When subdividing the convalescent patients based on admission status, fourfold higher antibody levels were observed for hospitalized patients compared to nonhospitalized patients (median 4.1 log₁₀ vs. 3.5 log₁₀ MFI, p<0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity was also significantly higher (fivefold) in hospitalized patients (3.6 log₁₀ vs. 2.9 log₁₀ MFI, p<0.0001), and antibody levels and neutralization capacity were strongly correlated in all patients (Spearman’s r = 0.735, p<0.0001) (Figure 1b). An eightfold higher antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein was observed in the oldest age group of COVID-19 patients (age >60) compared to the youngest age group (age <35) (4.1 log₁₀ vs. 3.2 log₁₀ MFI, p<0.001), which is in line with age being a risk factor for severe COVID-19 (Figure 1a; Williamson et al., 2020). No difference in antibody levels was observed between sex (3.8 log₁₀ vs. 3.9 log₁₀ MFI, p=0.71). These findings were confirmed with a principal component analysis, which showed two distinct groups based on hospital admission status, and indicated age as an important contributing variable (Figure 1c, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Overall, these results are consistent with previous studies (Ju et al., 2020; Lynch et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in COVID-19 patients.

(a) IgG binding of sera to SARS-CoV-2 S protein measured with a custom Luminex assay. Convalescent COVID-19 sera (COVID-19, blue dots, n = 50) were compared to sera of pre-pandemic healthy donors (HD, gray squares, n = 30) using a Mann–Whitney U test. The cohort of COVID-19 patients was subdivided according to admission status, sex, and age. Admission status is indicated with orange dots for hospitalized patients (Yes) and green dots if no admission to hospital was needed (No). (b) SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization capacity compared between hospitalized patients (orange dots) and patients that did not need admission to hospital (green dots) (left). The correlation between the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization and SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels in the Luminex assay was determined using Spearman’s correlation (right). (c) A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using the following variables: IgG antibodies binding to SARS-CoV-2 S protein (S), RBD and nucleocapsid protein (N), SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, age and days since symptom onset (DSSO). Admission status is indicated with orange dots for hospitalized patients and green dots if no admission to hospital was needed (left). Loading of the principal component (PC) plot by each variable is indicated with colored arrows to visualize the contribution of each variable on PC 1 and 2 (right). ns, not significant; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. MFI, median fluorescent intensity; S, spike protein; ID₅₀, serum dilution at which 50% of pseudovirus is neutralized; r, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Figure 1—source data 1 Source data of all panels of Figure 1.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/70330/elife-70330-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-70330-fig1-data1-v1.xlsx

Convalescent COVID-19 sera are cross-reactive with all hCoV S proteins

Next, we measured IgG binding to the S proteins of other hCoVs: SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, hCoV-OC43, hCoV-HKU1, hCoV-229E, and hCoV-NL63. We found significantly higher levels of antibodies binding to all hCoV S proteins in convalescent COVID-19 sera compared to pre-pandemic healthy donor sera, with the largest difference for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV S protein (123- and 11-fold difference between medians, respectively, p<0.0001 for both proteins) (Figure 2a). For the circulating seasonal hCoVs, a two- to fourfold difference in median levels of antibodies binding to the S proteins was observed; hCoV-OC43 (4.2-fold, p<0.0001), hCoV-HKU1 (4.3-fold, p<0.0001), hCoV-229E (3.8-fold, p<0.0001), and hCoV-NL63 (1.8-fold, p<0.01). No such difference was found for the control protein tetanus toxoid (0.8-fold, p=0.85) (Figure 2—figure supplement 1a).

Figure 2 with 6 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Cross-reactivity to hCoV S proteins in convalescent COVID-19 sera.

(a) IgG binding to all hCoV S proteins measured with a custom Luminex assay in convalescent COVID-19 sera (COVID-19, blue dots, n = 50) were compared to pre-pandemic sera from healthy donors (HD, gray squares, n = 30) using a Mann–Whitney U test. Box plots range the minimum and maximum values. **p<0.01; ****p<0.0001. Serum IgG binding to the tetanus toxoid control protein is shown in Supplementary file 2a. (b) Percent decrease of IgG binding to all other hCoV S proteins in COVID-19 patient sera (n = 50) after depletion with soluble recombinant SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Bars represent the mean decrease of binding IgG as a percentage of the total binding IgG observed in undepleted sera, and error bars represent the standard deviation. Dots represent the percent decrease of binding IgG observed in individual sera. The percent decrease of IgG binding to tetanus toxoid control protein in patient sera and healthy donor sera after SARS-CoV-2 S protein depletion is shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1b and c, respectively, and depletion of hCoV S IgG binding in healthy donor sera is shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1d. All absolute median fluorescent intensity (MFI) values are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1a and Figure 3—figure supplement 2a. S, spike protein.

Figure 2—source data 1 Source data of all panels of Figure 2.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/70330/elife-70330-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-70330-fig2-data1-v1.xlsx

To further explore the specificity of the cross-reactive antibodies in convalescent COVID-19 sera, we performed a depletion with soluble SARS-CoV-2 S protein (Figure 2b, Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Depletion of convalescent COVID-19 sera resulted in a 92% reduction of antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. The reduction of antibodies binding to the other hCoV S proteins was strongest for SARS-CoV (61% mean reduction) and MERS-CoV (25%). A more modest reduction of signal was observed for hCoV-OC43 (13% mean reduction) and hCoV-229E S protein (6%), and we observed no depletion of antibodies binding to hCoV-HKU1 (2%) and hCoV-NL63 (–2%). On the individual level, some patients showed up to 72, 70, and 34% reduction of antibodies binding to hCoV-OC43, hCoV-229E and hCoV-HKU1 S protein after depletion, respectively. No reduction in signal was observed for the control protein tetanus toxoid after SARS-CoV-2 S depletion (Figure 2b, Figure 2—figure supplement 1b). Antibodies binding to other hCoV S proteins in pre-pandemic healthy donor sera did not decrease after depletion (Figure 2—figure supplement 1c). These depletion experiments corroborate the finding that convalescent COVID-19 sera contain cross-reactive antibodies able to recognize other hCoV S proteins. We observed the highest cross-reactivity for the more closely related hCoVs (Supplementary file 2). Indeed, the level of cross-reactivity expressed as the reduction of binding antibodies after depletion by SARS-CoV-2 S protein was associated with the level of sequence identity (Spearman’s r = 0.83, p=0.06) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2).

To further explore the possible functionality of these cross-reactive antibodies, we investigated the correlation between hCoV S protein binding antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers. In addition to the observed correlation between SARS-CoV-2 S protein antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, we found a moderate correlation between SARS-CoV-2 neutralization and antibodies binding to SARS-CoV S protein (r = 0.545, p<0.0001), a weak correlation with antibodies that bind to MERS-CoV, hCoV-HKU1, and hCoV-229E S protein (r = 0.324, 0.308, 0.320, respectively, all p<0.05), and no correlation with antibodies binding to hCoV-OC43 and hCoV-NL63 S protein (r = 0.188 and –0.095, p>0.05) (Figure 2—figure supplement 3). These correlations suggest that cross-reactive antibodies form a minor component of the neutralizing antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also investigated if there was an association between cross-reactivity and disease severity with a principal component analysis. Antibodies binding to other hCoV S proteins did not contribute to the separation between patients based on admission status as clearly as was seen for SARS-CoV-2 S protein antibody levels, suggesting a limited impact of cross-reactive antibodies on disease severity (Figure 2—figure supplement 4).

Cross-reactive antibodies preferentially target the S2 subdomain

To determine the main target on the SARS-CoV-2 S protein for cross-reactive antibodies, we performed a depletion experiment in which we compared the reduction of IgG binding to hCoV S proteins after depleting the sera with soluble monomeric SARS-CoV-2 S1 or S2 subdomains. After depletion with the SARS-CoV-2 S2 subdomain, a 48, 20, and 19% mean reduction of signal was observed for antibodies binding to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and hCoV-OC43 S protein, respectively, while no reduction was observed after S1 depletion (Figure 3). Absolute MFI values before and after depletion are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 2a. For some individuals, depletion rates reached up to 83% for SARS-CoV, 75% for MERS-CoV, and 80% for hCoV-OC43 S protein while there were no individuals with substantial reduction of cross-reactive antibodies after S1 depletion. We did not observe significant depletion of antibodies binding to hCoV-HKU1 and hCoV-229E S proteins by S1 or S2 subdomains of SARS-CoV-2 at the group level. However, in some individuals the signal was reduced by up to 59% for hCoV-HKU1 and 71% for hCoV-229E S protein following depletion with the SARS-CoV-2 S2 subdomain, while such effects were not observed after S1 subdomain depletion. Changes in antibodies that bind to hCoV-NL63 S protein after depletion with SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 subdomains were comparable to those observed with the control protein tetanus toxoid and to the reduction in signal for hCoV S in healthy donors (Figure 3—figure supplement 1b and Figure 3—figure supplement 2b). SARS-CoV-2 S2 subdomain depletion was significantly correlated with S2 sequence identity (r = 0.90, p=0.03) while there was no correlation for SARS-CoV-2 S1 subdomain depletion (r = 0.23, p=0.67) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). These results indicate that S2-specific antibodies have a greater contribution to cross-reactivity than S1-specific antibodies, which is in accordance with the higher conservation of the S2 subdomain compared to the S1 subdomain (Supplementary file 2; Nguyen-Contant et al., 2020).

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Depletion of S1 and S2 subdomain-specific cross-reactivity in convalescent COVID-19 sera.

Percent decrease of IgG binding to all other hCoV S proteins in convalescent COVID-19 sera (n = 50) after depletion with soluble recombinant monomeric SARS-CoV-2 S1 or S2 subdomains. Bars represent the mean decrease of binding IgG as a percentage of the total binding IgG observed in undepleted sera, and error bars represent the standard deviation. Dots represent the percent decrease of binding IgG observed in individual sera. Percent decrease of IgG binding to tetanus toxoid control protein in patient sera after SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 depletion is shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1a. The percent decrease of IgG binding to hCoV S and tetanus toxoid protein in healthy donor sera after SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 depletion is shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1b and c. All absolute median fluorescent intensity (MFI) values are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1a and Figure 3—figure supplement 2a. S, spike protein.

Figure 3—source data 1 Source data of all panels of Figure 3.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/70330/elife-70330-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-70330-fig3-data1-v1.xlsx

SARS-CoV-2 S protein vaccination elicits hCoV cross-reactive antibodies in macaques

The observed cross-reactive antibody response following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 does not reveal whether these might be de novo responses or the result of cross-boosted preexisting memory from previous hCoV infections. To investigate the ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to induce de novo cross-reactive antibodies against hCoVs, we investigated the serum of six cynomolgus macaques that were vaccinated three times with prefusion-stabilized trimeric SARS-CoV-2 S protein coupled to I53-50 nanoparticles (Brouwer et al., 2021). The vaccination response was studied by comparing serum IgG binding to hCoV S proteins after three vaccinations (week 12) to the pre-immunization baseline (week 0). We observed that all macaques developed a detectable increase of antibodies that bind to all hCoV S proteins. Antibodies binding to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and hCoV-OC43 S proteins were increased compared to baseline by 3313-, 168-, and 106-fold, respectively (Figure 4a). This cross-reactivity was already detectable 2 weeks after the first immunization (Figure 4—figure supplement 1a). The induction of antibodies that bind to hCoV-HKU1 and hCoV-229E S proteins was relatively low with a 39- and 16-fold increase from baseline, respectively. Antibodies binding to hCoV-NL63 S protein showed only a sixfold increase from baseline (Figure 4a), and there was no increase observed for tetanus toxoid (Figure 4—figure supplement 1b and c). All comparisons were statistically significant except for the tetanus toxoid. Using the SARS-CoV-2 S protein depletion assay, an 88, 98, and 99% mean reduction of antibodies binding to SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and hCoV-OC43 S protein, respectively, was observed (Figure 4b). In addition, depletion also resulted in a mean reduction of antibodies binding to proteins hCoV-229E S (92%), hCoV-HKU1 S (92%), and hCoV-NL63 S (75%). Virtually no depletion (3%) was observed for the control protein tetanus toxoid (Figure 4—figure supplement 2). Together, these results demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is capable of inducing cross-reactive antibodies to both alpha and beta hCoVs in macaques.

Figure 4 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Cross-reactivity and depletion of cross-reactivity to hCoV S proteins in immunized macaques.

(a) SARS-CoV-2 S protein-specific IgG binding and cross-reactive IgG binding to SARS-CoV S protein at week 0 (pre-immunization baseline) and week 12 (after a total of three immunizations), measured with a custom Luminex assay in 1:50,000 diluted serum of six cynomolgus macaques immunized with a SARS-CoV-2 S nanoparticle vaccine (left) and cross-reactive IgG binding to all other hCoV S proteins, measured in 1:500 diluted serum in the same animals (right). Bars represent the geometric mean of the six animals, and error bars the geometric standard deviation; dots represent the individual animals, statistical comparisons used a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. IgG binding to hCoV S and tetanus toxoid control protein at weeks 2–12 is shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1a and b, and IgG binding to tetanus toxoid control protein at weeks 0 and 12 is shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1c. *p<0.05. (b) Percent decrease of IgG binding to all hCoV S proteins after depletion with soluble recombinant SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Bars represent the mean decrease of binding IgG as a percentage of the total binding IgG observed in undepleted sera of the six cynomolgus macaques at week 12, and error bars represent the standard deviation. Dots represent the percent decrease of binding IgG observed in individual sera. The percent decrease of IgG binding to tetanus toxoid control protein is shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 2b, and all median fluorescent intensity (MFI) values are shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 2a. S, spike protein.

Figure 4—source data 1 Source data of all panels of Figure 4.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/70330/elife-70330-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-70330-fig4-data1-v1.xlsx

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine elicits hCoV cross-reactive antibodies in SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals

To confirm the ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to induce cross-reactive antibodies also in a human setting, and to investigate the induction of these antibodies elicited by vaccination in a background of preexisting hCoV immunity, we measured IgG binding to hCoVs S proteins after vaccination in 45 SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals. Antibody levels 3 weeks after the first vaccination and 4 weeks after the second vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine were compared with their baseline results before vaccination (Figure 5). IgG binding to hCoV S proteins is already increased after the first vaccination, but the largest increase in binding was observed following the second vaccination for SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and hCoV-OC43 (62-fold, 11-fold, and 2.5-fold, respectively, all p<0.0001) (Figure 5). This is in accordance with our previous results in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and immunized macaques. The increase observed against hCoV-HKU1 (2.0-fold), hCoV-229E (2.1-fold), and hCoV-NL63 (1.9-fold) was similar to the increase observed for the control protein tetanus toxoid (1.7-fold, p<0.0001) (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). These results confirm our previous findings that most cross-reactivity following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is observed for the most closely related hCoVs.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Cross-reactivity to hCoV S proteins following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in human IgG binding to hCoVs S proteins measured with a custom Luminex assay in 1:100,000 diluted serum of 45 SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals at baseline (gray dots), 3 weeks after their first vaccination (blue dots) and 4 weeks after their second vaccination (dark blue dots) with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine.

IgG binding to tetanus toxoid control protein is shown in Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Friedman test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was used to compare medians of different time points and correct for multiple testing. Box plots range the minimum and maximum values. ns, not significant; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001.

Figure 5—source data 1 Source data of all panels of Figure 5.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/70330/elife-70330-fig5-data1-v1.xlsx
Download elife-70330-fig5-data1-v1.xlsx

Discussion

As mass vaccination campaigns take place around the globe, there is optimism that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will be subdued. However, there will likely be future challenges with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants as well as with entirely new hCoVs. A number of studies have shown that neutralizing antibodies induced by COVID-19 vaccines have substantially reduced activity against some SARS-CoV-2 variants (Voysey et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021). Therefore, development of broader SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is needed, with a pan-coronavirus vaccine as the ultimate goal.

In this study, we show that convalescent COVID-19 sera have higher levels of antibodies that bind to other hCoV S proteins compared to pre-pandemic healthy donors. We confirmed this cross-reactivity by showing that SARS-CoV-2 S protein could partially deplete antibodies binding to all hCoV S proteins except hCoV-NL63 in COVID-19 patient sera, while no effect of SARS-CoV-2 S protein depletion was observed in healthy donor sera. Additionally, we see that the elevation of hCoV S antibody levels and the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 S protein to deplete these antibodies is highest for hCoV S proteins that share most sequence homology with the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Cross-reactive antibodies can be the result of de novo responses or due to cross-boosting of preexisting hCoV immunity. Others have shown cross-reactive antibodies resulting from boosting of preexisting immunity after natural infection in COVID-19 patients (Ng et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2021). We further explored the possibility to induce de novo cross-reactive antibodies by vaccination in a cynomolgus macaque model. These macaques are unlikely to have encountered hCoVs, although infections of macaques have been described for the common cold hCoVs (Dijkman et al., 2009) and the animals were not tested for hCoV infection prior to entering the study. All SARS-CoV-2 S protein nanoparticle immunized macaques showed detectable antibodies binding to all hCoV S proteins, which could also be depleted with SARS-CoV-2 S protein. We suspect that the fact that not all sera reached a 100% depletion could be an indication of conformational differences between our hCoV S proteins, even though we confirmed that they form trimers (Figure 2—figure supplement 5). Throughout this study, a tetanus toxoid protein was consistently included and confirmed the specificity for the increase of IgG binding to hCoV S proteins in COVID-19 patient sera and in SARS-CoV-2 immunized macaque sera. Interestingly, we did observe a significant increase in antibody levels to tetanus toxoid following vaccination in humans, indicating also aspecific immune activation by the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, which has been observed by others as well (van Gils et al., 2021).

These responses after immunization with a vaccine containing a similar prefusion-stabilized SARS-CoV-2 S protein as many current COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate that these narrow focused vaccines might already induce low levels of cross-reactive antibodies. However, the strength of the response should be an important consideration as low levels of antibodies to viral antigens and/or the presence of predominantly non-neutralizing antibodies could potentially lead to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection (Wan et al., 2020). Currently, ADE has not been reported widely for SARS-CoV-2 (Arvin et al., 2020) and for other hCoVs there is no consensus (Lee et al., 2020). In addition, it remains unclear in clinical studies if preexisting immunity against other hCoVs influences the severity of COVID-19 (Westerhuis et al., 2020; Dugas et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2021; Sagar et al., 2021). In these 50 COVID-19 patients, we did not find evidence of a clear association between the presence of cross-reactive antibodies and COVID-19 disease severity.

As we show that most of the cross-reactivity is targeting the S2 subdomain of the S protein, we propose that this subdomain should receive more attention in vaccine design. The influence of the pre- or postfusion conformation of S2 on this level of cross-reactivity remains unknown as only a postfusion S2 construct is currently available. In addition, we can only speculate about the functionality of these S2 targeting antibodies as no neutralization assays for other hCoVs are performed in this study. However, others have described protective neutralizing antibodies targeting the S2 subdomain (Huang et al., 2021). Furthermore, analogous to some influenza virus hemagglutinin stem antibodies (DiLillo et al., 2016), antibody effector functions might also contribute to protective immunity by S2 antibodies (Zohar and Alter, 2020; Shiakolas et al., 2020). Additional possibilities to improve breadth include the use of consensus or mosaic vaccine designs similar to what has been done in HIV-1 vaccine research (Sliepen et al., 2019; Corey and McElrath, 2010; Cohen et al., 2021). In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, only a few S2 subdomain mutations are reported in SARS-CoV-2 variants (Hodcroft, 2021). Therefore, a S2-based booster vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could be used to amplify and broaden the immune response.

The results from this study on the presence and specificity of cross-reactive antibodies to other hCoVs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination emphasize the feasibility of broad coronavirus vaccines and may guide future vaccine designs.

Materials and methods

Key resources table

Reagent type (species) or resource	Designation	Source or reference	Identifiers	Additional information
Gene (viral structural protein)	SARS-CoV-2 spike	GenBank	ID: MN908947.3	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	SARS-CoV spike	GenBank	ID: ABD72984.1	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	MERS-CoV spike	GenBank	ID: AHI48550.1	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	hCoV-OC43 spike	GenBank	ID: AAT84362.1	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	hCoV-HKU1 spike	GenBank	ID: Q0ZME7	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	hCoV-229E spike	GenBank	ID: NP_073551.1	N/A
Gene (viral structural protein)	hCoV-NL63 spike	GenBank	ID: AKT07952.1	N/A
Cell line (human)	FreeStyle HEK293F cells	Thermo Fisher	Cat#: R79007; RRID:CVCL_D603	N/A
Cell line (human)	HEK293T/ACE2 cells	Schmidt et al	Ref: 51	N/A
Biological sample (human)	Human sera, post-infection	Brouwer et al., 2020	Ref: 52	N/A
Biological sample (human)	Human sera, post-vaccination	Appelman et al.	Ref: 53	N/A
Biological sample (cynomolgus macaque)	Cynomolgus macaque sera	Brouwer et al., 2021	Ref: 32	N/A
Antibody	Goat-anti-human IgG-PE (goat polyclonal)	Southern Biotech	Cat#: 2040-09;RRID: AB_2795648	‘Used at 1.3 µg/mL’
Peptide, recombinant protein	Prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain of SARS-CoV-2	Brouwer et al., 2020	Ref: 52	N/A
Peptide, recombinant protein	Prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain of SARS-CoV	.	Ref: 52	N/A
Peptide, recombinant protein	SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid	Sanquin Research	Ref: 54	Provided by Gestur Vidarsson and Federica Linty of Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Peptide, recombinant protein	tetanus toxoid	Creative Biolabs	Cat#: Vcar-Lsx003	N/A
Peptide, recombinant protein	SARS-CoV-2 S1 subdomain	ABclonal Biotechnology	Cat#: RP01262	N/A
Peptide, recombinant protein	SARS-CoV2 S2 subdomain	ABclonal Biotechnology	Cat#: RP01267	N/A
Chemical compound, drug	1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Cat#: A35391	N/A
Chemical compound, drug	Sulfo-N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Cat#: A39269	N/A
Chemical compound, drug	Polyethylenimine hydrochloride (PEI) MAX	Polysciences	Cat#: 24765-1	N/A
Software, algorithm	GraphPad Prism 8.3.0	GraphPad	N/A	N/A
Software, algorithm	MATLAB 9.6 (R2019a)	MATLAB	N/A	N/A
Other	Luminex Magplex beads	Luminex	Cat#: MC10043-01	N/A
Other	MAGPIX	Luminex	Cat#: MAGPIX-XPON4.1-RUO	N/A
Other	NiNTA agarose beads	QIAGEN	Cat#: R90115	N/A
Other	Superose6 increase 10/300 GL column	Cytiva	Cat#: 29091596	N/A
Other	4–12% NuPAGE Bis-Tris	Thermo Fisher	Cat#: NP0321BOX	N/A
Other	Novex colloidal blue staining kit	Invitrogen	Cat#: LC6025	N/A
Other	HMW-Native Protein Mixture	GE Healthcare	Cat#: 17044501	N/A
Other	Nano-Glo Luciferase Assay System	Promega	Cat#: N1130	N/A
Other	GloMax	Turner BioSystems	Cat#: 9101-002	N/A

Study population

Request a detailed protocol

Sera of 50 SARS-CoV-2-infected adults were collected 4–6 weeks after symptom onset through the cross-sectional COVID-19-specific antibodies (COSCA) study (NL 73281.018.20) as described previously (Brouwer et al., 2020). In short, all participants had at least one nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab positive for SARS-CoV-2 as determined by qRT-PCR (Roche LightCycler480, targeting the Envelope-gene 113 bp), and 49 of 50 participants were serological positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Wantai, WS-1096, total SARS-CoV-2 RBD targeting antibodies). Patient demographics and medical history were collected and used to score the maximum disease severity by using the WHO disease severity criteria of COVID-19 (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/clinical-management-of-covid-19, accessed on 16-10-2020). The COSCA study was conducted at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre, location AMC, the Netherlands, and approved by the local ethical committee (NL 73281.018.20). All individuals provided written informed consent before participating.

Sera of 30 healthy donors were kindly provided by the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM). Sera donated in 2019 were used to exclude possible exposure to SARS-CoV-2. No seasonal influence was observed when analyzing IgG binding to the seasonal coronaviruses of control sera obtained at different calendar months (data not shown).

Pre- and post-vaccination sera of 45 SARS-CoV-2-naïve participants were collected as part of the prospective serological surveillance cohort (S3-study) conducted in two tertiary medical centers in the Netherlands (Sikkens et al., 2021). The study was approved by the local ethical committee of both hospitals, and all participants gave written informed consent before participating (NL73478.029.20). In short, participants were included since the beginning of the pandemic in the Netherlands, March 2020, and asked to visit the hospital every 1–2 months to test for a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection by determining their serological response using the Wantai ELISA and to fill in a questionnaire about COVID-19-related symptoms and prior SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR results. Only participants without a history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in this current study. In January 2021, these SARS-CoV-2-naïve participants were vaccinated twice with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Serum samples were obtained approximately 21 days after the first and 28 days after the second vaccination. Additional information about the study population and the SARS-CoV-2-specific response following vaccination is described by Appelman et al., 2021.

Cynomolgus macaques

Request a detailed protocol

Cynomolgus macaques (n = 6) received 50 µg of SARS-CoV-2 S-I53-50NP adjuvanted with 500 µg of MPLA liposomes (Polymun Scientific, Klosterneuburg, Austria) diluted in PBS by intramuscular route at weeks 0, 4, and 10. Blood samples were taken at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 after vaccination. Additional information is described by Brouwer et al., 2021.

Cell lines

Request a detailed protocol

HEK293F cells were sourced from Invitrogen, and HEK293T cells expressing the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 were provided by Paul Bieniasz of The Rockefeller University and verified by FACS. Cells have been tested for Mycoplasma contamination.

Protein designs

Request a detailed protocol

A prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV with a T4 trimerization domain and hexahistidine (His) tag were previously described (Brouwer et al., 2020). A prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomains construct of hCoV-HKU1 was designed as described previously (Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016). Specifically, a gene encoding amino acids 1–1276, in which the furin cleavage site (amino acids 752–756) was replaced with a GGSGS sequence and amino acids at position 1067 and 1068 were mutated to prolines, was ordered and cloned into a pPPI4 plasmid containing a T4 trimerization domain followed by a hexahistidine tag. The same procedure was used to generate prefusion-stabilized S proteins of MERS-CoV, hCoV-229E, hCoV-NL63, and hCoV-OC43. For the prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain of hCoV-229E, a gene encoding amino acids 1–1082, with proline substitutions at positions 871 and 872, was ordered. The prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain construct of hCoV-NL63 consisted of amino acids 1–1263 and introduction of proline substitutions at positions 1052 and 1053. For MERS-CoV, a gene encoding amino acids 1–1214 with proline substitutions at positions 1060 and 1061 was obtained, and the furin cleavage site (amino acids 748–751) replaced with an ASVG sequence. The prefusion-stabilized S protein ectodomain construct of hCoV-OC43 was designed as described previously (Tortorici et al., 2019). Specifically, this construct consisted of amino acids 1–1263, which had the furin cleavage site replaced with a GGSGG sequence and proline substitutions at positions 1070 and 1071. GenBank IDs MN908947.3 (SARS-CoV-2), ABD72984.1 (SARS-CoV), AHI48550.1 (MERS-CoV), AAT84362.1 (hCoV-OC43), Q0ZME7 (hCoV-HKU1), NP_073551.1 (hCoV-229E), and AKT07952.1 (hCoV-NL63) served as templates for the protein designs.

Protein expression and purification

Request a detailed protocol

The tetanus toxoid protein was acquired from Creative Biolabs. SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (Larsen et al., 2021) was kindly provided by Gestur Vidarsson and Federica Linty of Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. All other proteins were produced in HEK293F cells (Invitrogen) maintained in FreeStyle medium (Life Technologies). Transfections were performed using polyethylenimine hydrochloride (PEI) MAX (Polysciences) at 1 mg/L and the expression plasmids at 312.5 µg/L in a 3:1 ratio in 50 mL OptiMEM (Gibco) per liter. Supernatants were harvested 7 days post transfection by centrifugation at 4000 rpm for 30 min followed by filtration of the supernatant using 0.22 µM Steritop filter units (Merck Millipore). The His-tagged proteins were purified from the clarified supernatant with affinity chromatography using NiNTA agarose beads (QIAGEN). Eluates were concentrated and buffer exchanged to PBS using 100 kDa molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) Vivaspin centrifugal concentrators. Further purification to remove aggregated and monomeric protein fractions was performed using size-exclusion chromatography on a Superose6 increase 10/300 GL column (GE Healthcare) using PBS as buffer. Trimeric S proteins were eluted at a volume of approximately 13 mL. Fractions containing trimeric protein were pooled and concentrated using 100 kDa MWCO Vivaspin centrifugal concentrators. The resulting protein concentrations were determined using a Nanodrop 2000 Spectrophotometer, and proteins were stored at –80°C until needed. Information regarding protein integrity was obtained from Native PAGE analysis, which showed all proteins consisted of trimers (Figure 2—figure supplement 5). 4–12% NuPAGE Bis-Tris gels (Invitrogen) were used with a Novex colloidal blue staining kit (Invitrogen) and HMW-Native Protein Mixture (GE Healthcare) as a marker.

Protein coupling to Luminex beads

Request a detailed protocol

Proteins were covalently coupled to Luminex Magplex beads using a two-step carbodiimide reaction and a ratio of 75 µg protein to 12.5 million beads for SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Other proteins were coupled equimolar to SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Luminex Magplex beads (Luminex) were washed with 100 mM monobasic sodium phosphate pH 6.2 and activated by addition of sulfo-N-hydroxysulfosuccinimide (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and incubated for 30 min on a rotator at room temperature. The activated beads were washed three times with 50 mM MES pH 5.0, and the proteins were diluted in 50 mM MES pH 5.0 and added to the beads. The beads and proteins were incubated for 3 hr on a rotator at room temperature. Afterward, the beads were washed with PBS and blocked with PBS containing 2% BSA, 3% fetal calf serum, and 0.02% Tween-20 at pH 7.0 for 30 min on a rotator at room temperature. Finally, the beads were washed and stored at 4°C in PBS containing 0.05% sodium azide and used within 6 months. Detection of the His-tag on each S protein-coupled bead was used to confirm the amount of protein on the beads.

Luminex assays

Request a detailed protocol

Optimization experiments determined the optimal concentration for detection of hCoV S protein binding antibodies to be 1:10,000 dilution for COVID-19 patients, 1:50,000 for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 detection in cynomolgus macaques, and 1:500 for detection of binding antibodies to other hCoV S proteins in cynomolgus macaques. 50 µL of a working bead mixture containing 20 beads per µL of each region was incubated overnight with 50 µL of diluted serum. Plates were sealed and incubated on a plate shaker overnight at 4°C. The next day, plates were washed with TBS containing 0.05% Tween-20 (TBST) using a hand-held magnetic separator. Beads were resuspended in 50 µL of goat-anti-human IgG-PE (Southern Biotech) and incubated on a plate shaker at room temperature for 2 hr. Afterward, the beads were washed with TBST and resuspended in 70 µL MAGPIX Drive Fluid (Luminex). The beads were agitated for a few minutes on a plate shaker at room temperature and then read-out was performed on a MAGPIX (Luminex). The resulting MFI values are the median of approximately 50 beads per well and were corrected by subtraction of MFI values from buffer and beads-only wells. A titration of serum of one convalescent COVID-19 patient as well as positive and negative controls was included on each plate to confirm assay performance. Assays were performed twice (technical replicates) with similar results (Figure 2—figure supplement 6).

Depletion luminex assay

Request a detailed protocol

Convalescent COVID-19 patient sera were diluted 1:10,000 with addition of 10 µg/mL soluble recombinant SARS-CoV-2 prefusion-stabilized S protein, monomeric in a postfusion confirmation S1 or S2 subdomain (ABclonal Biotechnology) or without protein (as undepleted controls). Immunized macaque sera were diluted 1:500 with addition of 30 µg/mL SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Incubation was performed in uncoated 96-wells plates on a shaker at room temperature for 1 hr. Then, 50 µL of a working bead mixture containing 20 beads per µL of each region was added, and the plates were incubated 2 hr on a shaker at room temperature. After 2 hr, the above-described Luminex protocol was continued starting with the TBST washes and the goat-anti-human IgG-PE incubation.

SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay

Request a detailed protocol

The pseudovirus neutralization assay was performed as described previously (Brouwer et al., 2021). Briefly, HEK293T cells expressing the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 (Schmidt et al., 2020) were seeded in poly-L-lysine-coated 96-wells plates, and the next day triplicate serial dilutions of heat-inactivated serum samples were prepared, mixed 1:1 with SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, incubated for 1 hr at 37°C, and then added in a 1:1 ratio to the cells. After 48 hr, the cells were lysed, transferred to half-area 96-wells white microplates (Greiner Bio-One), and Luciferase activity was measured using the Nano-Glo Luciferase Assay System (Promega) with a GloMax system (Turner BioSystems). Relative luminescence units were normalized to the units from cells infected with pseudovirus in the absence of serum. Neutralization titers (ID₅₀) were the serum dilution at which infectivity was inhibited 50%.

Statistical analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Luminex data were log transformed prior to any statistical analysis. p-Values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Mann–Whitney U tests for unpaired comparisons, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test for paired comparisons, Friedman test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test for paired comparisons with correction for multiple testing, and Spearman’s correlations were performed in GraphPad Prism 8.3.0. An overview of all statistical tests, exact p-values, and 95% confidence Intervals is provided in Supplementary file 3. Principal component analysis was performed in MATLAB 9.6 (R2019a).

Data availability

All relevant data is included in the paper and supplementary materials.

References

1. Anderson EM
2. Goodwin EC
3. Verma A
4. Arevalo CP
5. Bolton MJ
6. Weirick ME
7. Gouma S
8. McAllister CM
9. Christensen SR
10. Weaver J
11. Hicks P
12. Manzoni TB
13. Oniyide O
14. Ramage H
15. Mathew D
16. Baxter AE
17. Oldridge DA
18. Greenplate AR
19. Wu JE
20. Alanio C
21. D’Andrea K
22. Kuthuru O
23. Dougherty J
24. Pattekar A
25. Kim J
26. Han N
27. Apostolidis SA
28. Huang AC
29. Vella LA
30. Kuri-Cervantes L
31. Pampena MB
32. UPenn COVID Processing Unit
33. Betts MR
34. Wherry EJ
35. Meyer NJ
36. Cherry S
37. Bates P
38. Rader DJ
39. Hensley SE
(2021) Seasonal human coronavirus antibodies are boosted upon SARS-CoV-2 infection but not associated with protection
Cell 184:1858–1864.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.010
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Time since SARS-CoV-2 infection and humoral immune response following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination
EBioMedicine 72:103589.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103589
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2020) A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2
Nature 584:353–363.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2021) Immunological imprinting of the antibody response in COVID-19 patients
Nature Communications 12:3781.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23977-1
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Baden LR
2. El Sahly HM
3. Essink B
4. Kotloff K
5. Frey S
6. Novak R
7. Diemert D
8. Spector SA
9. Rouphael N
10. Creech CB
11. McGettigan J
12. Khetan S
13. Segall N
14. Solis J
15. Brosz A
16. Fierro C
17. Schwartz H
18. Neuzil K
19. Corey L
20. Gilbert P
21. Janes H
22. Follmann D
23. Marovich M
24. Mascola J
25. Polakowski L
26. Ledgerwood J
27. Graham BS
28. Bennett H
29. Pajon R
30. Knightly C
31. Leav B
32. Deng W
33. Zhou H
34. Han S
35. Ivarsson M
36. Miller J
37. Zaks T
38. COVE Study Group
(2021) Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
The New England Journal of Medicine 384:403–416.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Barnes CO
2. West AP Jr
3. Huey-Tubman KE
4. Hoffmann MAG
5. Sharaf NG
6. Hoffman PR
7. Koranda N
8. Gristick HB
9. Gaebler C
10. Muecksch F
11. Lorenzi JCC
12. Finkin S
13. Hägglöf T
14. Hurley A
15. Millard KG
16. Weisblum Y
17. Schmidt F
18. Hatziioannou T
19. Bieniasz PD
20. Caskey M
21. Robbiani DF
22. Nussenzweig MC
23. Bjorkman PJ
(2020) Structures of Human Antibodies Bound to SARS-CoV-2 Spike Reveal Common Epitopes and Recurrent Features of Antibodies
Cell 182:828–842.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.025
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Brouwer PJM
2. Caniels TG
3. van der Straten K
4. Snitselaar JL
5. Aldon Y
6. Bangaru S
7. Torres JL
8. Okba NMA
9. Claireaux M
10. Kerster G
11. Bentlage AEH
12. van Haaren MM
13. Guerra D
14. Burger JA
15. Schermer EE
16. Verheul KD
17. van der Velde N
18. van der Kooi A
19. van Schooten J
20. van Breemen MJ
21. Bijl TPL
22. Sliepen K
23. Aartse A
24. Derking R
25. Bontjer I
26. Kootstra NA
27. Wiersinga WJ
28. Vidarsson G
29. Haagmans BL
30. Ward AB
31. de Bree GJ
32. Sanders RW
33. van Gils MJ
(2020) Potent neutralizing antibodies from COVID-19 patients define multiple targets of vulnerability
Science 369:643–650.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc5902
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Brouwer PJM
2. Brinkkemper M
3. Maisonnasse P
4. Dereuddre-Bosquet N
5. Grobben M
6. Claireaux M
7. de Gast M
8. Marlin R
9. Chesnais V
10. Diry S
11. Allen JD
12. Watanabe Y
13. Giezen JM
14. Kerster G
15. Turner HL
16. van der Straten K
17. van der Linden CA
18. Aldon Y
19. Naninck T
20. Bontjer I
21. Burger JA
22. Poniman M
23. Mykytyn AZ
24. Okba NMA
25. Schermer EE
26. van Breemen MJ
27. Ravichandran R
28. Caniels TG
29. van Schooten J
30. Kahlaoui N
31. Contreras V
32. Lemaître J
33. Chapon C
34. Fang RHT
35. Villaudy J
36. Sliepen K
37. van der Velden YU
38. Haagmans BL
39. de Bree GJ
40. Ginoux E
41. Ward AB
42. Crispin M
43. King NP
44. van der Werf S
45. van Gils MJ
46. Le Grand R
47. Sanders RW
(2021) Two-component spike nanoparticle vaccine protects macaques from SARS-CoV-2 infection
Cell 184:1188–1200.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.035
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Cohen AA
2. Gnanapragasam PNP
3. Lee YE
4. Hoffman PR
5. Ou S
6. Kakutani LM
7. Keeffe JR
8. Wu H-J
9. Howarth M
10. West AP
11. Barnes CO
12. Nussenzweig MC
13. Bjorkman PJ
(2021) Mosaic nanoparticles elicit cross-reactive immune responses to zoonotic coronaviruses in mice
Science 371:735–741.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf6840
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Corey L
2. McElrath MJ
(2010) HIV vaccines: mosaic approach to virus diversity
Nature Medicine 16:268–270.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0310-268
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2020) The emergence of SARS, MERS and novel SARS-2 coronaviruses in the 21st century
Archives of Virology 165:1517–1526.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-020-04628-0
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2016) SARS and MERS: recent insights into emerging coronaviruses
Nature Reviews. Microbiology 14:523–534.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.81
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2009) Seroconversion to HCoV-NL63 in Rhesus Macaques
Viruses 1:647–656.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v1030647
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2016) Broadly neutralizing anti-influenza antibodies require Fc receptor engagement for in vivo protection
The Journal of Clinical Investigation 126:605–610.

https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI84428
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Dugas M
2. Grote-Westrick T
3. Vollenberg R
4. Lorentzen E
5. Brix T
6. Schmidt H
7. Tepasse PR
8. Kühn J
(2021) Less severe course of COVID-19 is associated with elevated levels of antibodies against seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 (HCoV OC43, HCoV HKU1)
International Journal of Infectious Diseases 105:304–306.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.085
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Hacisuleyman E
2. Hale C
3. Saito Y
4. Blachere NE
5. Bergh M
6. Conlon EG
7. Schaefer-Babajew DJ
8. DaSilva J
9. Muecksch F
10. Gaebler C
11. Lifton R
12. Nussenzweig MC
13. Hatziioannou T
14. Bieniasz PD
15. Darnell RB
(2021) Vaccine Breakthrough Infections with SARS-CoV-2 Variants
The New England Journal of Medicine 384:2212–2218.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2105000
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Website
1. Hodcroft E
(2021) CoVariants
Accessed October 5, 2021.

https://covariants.org/shared-mutations
Preprint
1. Huang Y
2. Nguyen AW
3. Hsieh CL
4. Silva R
5. Olaluwoye OS
6. Wilen RE
7. Kaoud TS
8. Azouz LR
9. Qerqez AN
10. Le KC
(2021) Identification of a Conserved Neutralizing Epitope Present on Spike Proteins from All Highly Pathogenic Coronaviruses
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.31.428824
- Google Scholar
1. Ju B
2. Zhang Q
3. Ge J
4. Wang R
5. Sun J
6. Ge X
7. Yu J
8. Shan S
9. Zhou B
10. Song S
11. Tang X
12. Yu J
13. Lan J
14. Yuan J
15. Wang H
16. Zhao J
17. Zhang S
18. Wang Y
19. Shi X
20. Liu L
21. Zhao J
22. Wang X
23. Zhang Z
24. Zhang L
(2020) Human neutralizing antibodies elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection
Nature 584:115–119.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2380-z
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kahn JS
2. McIntosh K
(2005) History and recent advances in coronavirus discovery
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 24:S223–S227.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.inf.0000188166.17324.60
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kirchdoerfer RN
2. Cottrell CA
3. Wang N
4. Pallesen J
5. Yassine HM
6. Turner HL
7. Corbett KS
8. Graham BS
9. McLellan JS
10. Ward AB
(2016) Pre-fusion structure of a human coronavirus spike protein
Nature 531:118–121.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17200
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kustin T
2. Harel N
3. Finkel U
4. Perchik S
5. Harari S
6. Tahor M
7. Caspi I
8. Levy R
9. Leshchinsky M
10. Ken Dror S
11. Bergerzon G
12. Gadban H
13. Gadban F
14. Eliassian E
15. Shimron O
16. Saleh L
17. Ben-Zvi H
18. Keren Taraday E
19. Amichay D
20. Ben-Dor A
21. Sagas D
22. Strauss M
23. Shemer Avni Y
24. Huppert A
25. Kepten E
26. Balicer RD
27. Netzer D
28. Ben-Shachar S
29. Stern A
(2021) Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2-mRNA-vaccinated individuals
Nature Medicine 27:1379–1384.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01413-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Larsen MD
2. de Graaf EL
3. Sonneveld ME
4. Plomp HR
5. Nouta J
6. Hoepel W
7. Chen H-J
8. Linty F
9. Visser R
10. Brinkhaus M
11. Šuštić T
12. de Taeye SW
13. Bentlage AEH
14. Toivonen S
15. Koeleman CAM
16. Sainio S
17. Kootstra NA
18. Brouwer PJM
19. Geyer CE
20. Derksen NIL
21. Wolbink G
22. de Winther M
23. Sanders RW
24. van Gils MJ
25. de Bruin S
26. Vlaar APJ
27. Amsterdam UMC COVID-19
28. biobank study group
29. Rispens T
30. den Dunnen J
31. Zaaijer HL
32. Wuhrer M
33. Ellen van der Schoot C
34. Vidarsson G
(2021) Afucosylated IgG characterizes enveloped viral responses and correlates with COVID-19 severity
Science 371:eabc8378.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8378
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Lee WS
2. Wheatley AK
3. Kent SJ
4. DeKosky BJ
(2020) Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies
Nature Microbiology 5:1185–1191.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-00789-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Li Y
2. Wang X
3. Nair H
(2020) Global Seasonality of Human Seasonal Coronaviruses: A Clue for Postpandemic Circulating Season of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2?
The Journal of Infectious Diseases 222:1090–1097.

https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa436
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Liu Y
2. Liu J
3. Xia H
4. Zhang X
5. Fontes-Garfias CR
6. Swanson KA
7. Cai H
8. Sarkar R
9. Chen W
10. Cutler M
11. Cooper D
12. Weaver SC
13. Muik A
14. Sahin U
15. Jansen KU
16. Xie X
17. Dormitzer PR
18. Shi P-Y
(2021) Neutralizing Activity of BNT162b2-Elicited Serum
New England Journal of Medicine 384:1466–1468.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2102017
- Google Scholar
1. Lopez Bernal J
2. Andrews N
3. Gower C
4. Gallagher E
5. Simmons R
6. Thelwall S
7. Stowe J
8. Tessier E
9. Groves N
10. Dabrera G
11. Myers R
12. Campbell CNJ
13. Amirthalingam G
14. Edmunds M
15. Zambon M
16. Brown KE
17. Hopkins S
18. Chand M
19. Ramsay M
(2021) Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant
New England Journal of Medicine 385:585–594.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
- Google Scholar
1. Lu R
2. Zhao X
3. Li J
4. Niu P
5. Yang B
6. Wu H
7. Wang W
8. Song H
9. Huang B
10. Zhu N
11. Bi Y
12. Ma X
13. Zhan F
14. Wang L
15. Hu T
16. Zhou H
17. Hu Z
18. Zhou W
19. Zhao L
20. Chen J
21. Meng Y
22. Wang J
23. Lin Y
24. Yuan J
25. Xie Z
26. Ma J
27. Liu WJ
28. Wang D
29. Xu W
30. Holmes EC
31. Gao GF
32. Wu G
33. Chen W
34. Shi W
35. Tan W
(2020) Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding
Lancet 395:565–574.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Lynch KL
2. Whitman JD
3. Lacanienta NP
4. Beckerdite EW
5. Kastner SA
6. Shy BR
7. Goldgof GM
8. Levine AG
9. Bapat SP
10. Stramer SL
11. Esensten JH
12. Hightower AW
13. Bern C
14. Wu AHB
(2021) Magnitude and Kinetics of Anti–Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Responses and Their Relationship to Disease Severity
Clinical Infectious Diseases 72:301–308.

https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa979
- Google Scholar
1. Madhi SA
2. Baillie V
3. Cutland CL
4. Voysey M
5. Koen AL
6. Fairlie L
7. Padayachee SD
8. Dheda K
9. Barnabas SL
10. Bhorat QE
11. Briner C
12. Kwatra G
13. Ahmed K
14. Aley P
15. Bhikha S
16. Bhiman JN
17. Bhorat AE
18. du Plessis J
19. Esmail A
20. Groenewald M
21. Horne E
22. Hwa SH
23. Jose A
24. Lambe T
25. Laubscher M
26. Malahleha M
27. Masenya M
28. Masilela M
29. McKenzie S
30. Molapo K
31. Moultrie A
32. Oelofse S
33. Patel F
34. Pillay S
35. Rhead S
36. Rodel H
37. Rossouw L
38. Taoushanis C
39. Tegally H
40. Thombrayil A
41. van Eck S
42. Wibmer CK
43. Durham NM
44. Kelly EJ
45. Villafana TL
46. Gilbert S
47. Pollard AJ
48. de Oliveira T
49. Moore PL
50. Sigal A
51. Izu A
52. NGS-SA Group
53. Wits-VIDA COVID Group
(2021) Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant
The New England Journal of Medicine 384:1885–1898.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ng KW
2. Faulkner N
3. Cornish GH
4. Rosa A
5. Harvey R
6. Hussain S
7. Ulferts R
8. Earl C
9. Wrobel AG
10. Benton DJ
11. Roustan C
12. Bolland W
13. Thompson R
14. Agua-Doce A
15. Hobson P
16. Heaney J
17. Rickman H
18. Paraskevopoulou S
19. Houlihan CF
20. Thomson K
21. Sanchez E
22. Shin GY
23. Spyer MJ
24. Joshi D
25. O’Reilly N
26. Walker PA
27. Kjaer S
28. Riddell A
29. Moore C
30. Jebson BR
31. Wilkinson M
32. Marshall LR
33. Rosser EC
34. Radziszewska A
35. Peckham H
36. Ciurtin C
37. Wedderburn LR
38. Beale R
39. Swanton C
40. Gandhi S
41. Stockinger B
42. McCauley J
43. Gamblin SJ
44. McCoy LE
45. Cherepanov P
46. Nastouli E
47. Kassiotis G
(2020) Preexisting and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans
Science 370:1339–1343.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1107
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2020) S Protein-Reactive IgG and Memory B Cell Production after Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection Includes Broad Reactivity to the S2 Subunit
MBio 11:e01991-20.

https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01991-20
- Google Scholar
1. Polack FP
2. Thomas SJ
3. Kitchin N
4. Absalon J
5. Gurtman A
6. Lockhart S
7. Perez JL
8. Pérez Marc G
9. Moreira ED
10. Zerbini C
11. Bailey R
12. Swanson KA
13. Roychoudhury S
14. Koury K
15. Li P
16. Kalina WV
17. Cooper D
18. Frenck RW Jr
19. Hammitt LL
20. Türeci Ö
21. Nell H
22. Schaefer A
23. Ünal S
24. Tresnan DB
25. Mather S
26. Dormitzer PR
27. Şahin U
28. Jansen KU
29. Gruber WC
30. C4591001 Clinical Trial Group
(2020) Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
The New England Journal of Medicine 383:2603–2615.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Rappazzo CG
2. Tse LV
3. Kaku CI
4. Wrapp D
5. Sakharkar M
6. Huang D
7. Deveau LM
8. Yockachonis TJ
9. Herbert AS
10. Battles MB
11. O’Brien CM
12. Brown ME
13. Geoghegan JC
14. Belk J
15. Peng L
16. Yang L
17. Hou Y
18. Scobey TD
19. Burton DR
20. Nemazee D
21. Dye JM
22. Voss JE
23. Gunn BM
24. McLellan JS
25. Baric RS
26. Gralinski LE
27. Walker LM
(2021) Broad and potent activity against SARS-like viruses by an engineered human monoclonal antibody
Science 371:823–829.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf4830
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Sadoff J
2. Le Gars M
3. Shukarev G
4. Heerwegh D
5. Truyers C
6. de Groot AM
7. Stoop J
8. Tete S
9. Van Damme W
10. Leroux-Roels I
11. Berghmans P-J
12. Kimmel M
13. Van Damme P
14. de Hoon J
15. Smith W
16. Stephenson KE
17. De Rosa SC
18. Cohen KW
19. McElrath MJ
20. Cormier E
21. Scheper G
22. Barouch DH
23. Hendriks J
24. Struyf F
25. Douoguih M
26. Van Hoof J
27. Schuitemaker H
(2021) Interim Results of a Phase 1–2a Trial of Ad26.COV2.S Covid-19 Vaccine
New England Journal of Medicine 384:1824–1835.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034201
- Google Scholar
1. Sagar M
2. Reifler K
3. Rossi M
4. Miller NS
5. Sinha P
6. White LF
7. Mizgerd JP
(2021) Recent endemic coronavirus infection is associated with less-severe COVID-19
The Journal of Clinical Investigation 131:143380.

https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI143380
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Schmidt F
2. Weisblum Y
3. Muecksch F
4. Hoffmann H-H
5. Michailidis E
6. Lorenzi JCC
7. Mendoza P
8. Rutkowska M
9. Bednarski E
10. Gaebler C
11. Agudelo M
12. Cho A
13. Wang Z
14. Gazumyan A
15. Cipolla M
16. Caskey M
17. Robbiani DF
18. Nussenzweig MC
19. Rice CM
20. Hatziioannou T
21. Bieniasz PD
(2020) Measuring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity using pseudotyped and chimeric viruses
The Journal of Experimental Medicine 217:e20201181.

https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20201181
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. Shiakolas AR
2. Kramer KJ
3. Wrapp D
4. Richardson SI
5. Schäfer A
6. Wall S
7. Wang N
8. Janowska K
9. Pilewski KA
10. Venkat R
(2020) Cross-Reactive Coronavirus Antibodies with Diverse Epitope Specificities and Extra-Neutralization Functions
bioRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.20.414748
- Google Scholar
1. Sikkens JJ
2. Buis DTP
3. Peters EJG
4. Dekker M
5. Schinkel M
6. Reijnders TDY
7. Schuurman AR
8. de Brabander J
9. Lavell AHA
10. Maas JJ
11. Koopsen J
12. Han AX
13. Russell CA
14. Schinkel J
15. Jonges M
16. Matamoros S
17. Jurriaans S
18. van Mansfeld R
19. Wiersinga WJ
20. Smulders YM
21. de Jong MD
22. Bomers MK
(2021) Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers
JAMA Network Open 4:e2118554.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18554
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Sliepen K
2. Han BW
3. Bontjer I
4. Mooij P
5. Garces F
6. Behrens A-J
7. Rantalainen K
8. Kumar S
9. Sarkar A
10. Brouwer PJM
11. Hua Y
12. Tolazzi M
13. Schermer E
14. Torres JL
15. Ozorowski G
16. van der Woude P
17. de la Peña AT
18. van Breemen MJ
19. Camacho-Sánchez JM
20. Burger JA
21. Medina-Ramírez M
22. González N
23. Alcami J
24. LaBranche C
25. Scarlatti G
26. van Gils MJ
27. Crispin M
28. Montefiori DC
29. Ward AB
30. Koopman G
31. Moore JP
32. Shattock RJ
33. Bogers WM
34. Wilson IA
35. Sanders RW
(2019) Structure and immunogenicity of a stabilized HIV-1 envelope trimer based on a group-M consensus sequence
Nature Communications 10:2355.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10262-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Song G
2. He W
3. Callaghan S
4. Anzanello F
5. Huang D
6. Ricketts J
7. Torres JL
8. Beutler N
9. Peng L
10. Vargas S
11. Cassell J
12. Parren M
13. Yang L
14. Ignacio C
15. Smith DM
16. Voss JE
17. Nemazee D
18. Ward AB
19. Rogers T
20. Burton DR
21. Andrabi R
(2021) Cross-reactive serum and memory B-cell responses to spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronavirus infection
Nature Communications 12:1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23074-3
- Google Scholar
1. Tabata S
2. Imai K
3. Kawano S
4. Ikeda M
5. Kodama T
6. Miyoshi K
7. Obinata H
8. Mimura S
9. Kodera T
10. Kitagaki M
11. Sato M
12. Suzuki S
13. Ito T
14. Uwabe Y
15. Tamura K
(2020) Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 20:1043–1050.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30482-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Tortorici MA
2. Walls AC
3. Lang Y
4. Wang C
5. Li Z
6. Koerhuis D
7. Boons G-J
8. Bosch B-J
9. Rey FA
10. de Groot RJ
11. Veesler D
(2019) Structural basis for human coronavirus attachment to sialic acid receptors
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 26:481–489.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-019-0233-y
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
1. van Gils MJ
2. van Willigen HD
3. Wynberg E
4. Han AX
5. van der Straten K
6. Verveen A
7. Lebbink R
8. Dijkstra M
9. Burger JA
10. Oomen M
(2021) Single-Dose SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in a Prospective Cohort of COVID-19 Patients
medRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.25.21257797
- Google Scholar
1. Voysey M
2. Clemens SAC
3. Madhi SA
4. Weckx LY
5. Folegatti PM
6. Aley PK
7. Angus B
8. Baillie VL
9. Barnabas SL
10. Bhorat QE
11. Bibi S
12. Briner C
13. Cicconi P
14. Collins AM
15. Colin-Jones R
16. Cutland CL
17. Darton TC
18. Dheda K
19. Duncan CJA
20. Emary KRW
21. Ewer KJ
22. Fairlie L
23. Faust SN
24. Feng S
25. Ferreira DM
26. Finn A
27. Goodman AL
28. Green CM
29. Green CA
30. Heath PT
31. Hill C
32. Hill H
33. Hirsch I
34. Hodgson SHC
35. Izu A
36. Jackson S
37. Jenkin D
38. Joe CCD
39. Kerridge S
40. Koen A
41. Kwatra G
42. Lazarus R
43. Lawrie AM
44. Lelliott A
45. Libri V
46. Lillie PJ
47. Mallory R
48. Mendes AVA
49. Milan EP
50. Minassian AM
51. McGregor A
52. Morrison H
53. Mujadidi YF
54. Nana A
55. O’Reilly PJ
56. Padayachee SD
57. Pittella A
58. Plested E
59. Pollock KM
60. Ramasamy MN
61. Rhead S
62. Schwarzbold AV
63. Singh N
64. Smith A
65. Song R
66. Snape MD
67. Sprinz E
68. Sutherland RK
69. Tarrant R
70. Thomson EC
71. Török ME
72. Toshner M
73. Turner DPJ
74. Vekemans J
75. Villafana TL
76. Watson MEE
77. Williams CJ
78. Douglas AD
79. Hill AVS
80. Lambe T
81. Gilbert SC
82. Pollard AJ
83. Oxford COVID Vaccine Trial Group
(2021) Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK
Lancet 397:99–111.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Walls AC
2. Park Y-J
3. Tortorici MA
4. Wall A
5. McGuire AT
6. Veesler D
(2020) Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein
Cell 181:281–292.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wan Y
2. Shang J
3. Sun S
4. Tai W
5. Chen J
6. Geng Q
7. He L
8. Chen Y
9. Wu J
10. Shi Z
11. Zhou Y
12. Du L
13. Li F
(2020) Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry
Journal of Virology 94:e02015-19.

https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02015-19
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wang C
2. Li W
3. Drabek D
4. Okba NMA
5. van Haperen R
6. Osterhaus ADME
7. van Kuppeveld FJM
8. Haagmans BL
9. Grosveld F
10. Bosch B-J
(2020) A human monoclonal antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection
Nature Communications 11:1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16256-y
- Google Scholar
1. Wec AZ
2. Wrapp D
3. Herbert AS
4. Maurer DP
5. Haslwanter D
6. Sakharkar M
7. Jangra RK
8. Dieterle ME
9. Lilov A
10. Huang D
11. Tse LV
12. Johnson NV
13. Hsieh CL
14. Wang N
15. Nett JH
16. Champney E
17. Burnina I
18. Brown M
19. Lin S
20. Sinclair M
21. Johnson C
22. Pudi S
23. Wirchnianski AS
24. Laudermilch E
25. Florez C
26. Fels JM
27. O’Brien CM
28. Graham BS
29. Nemazee D
30. Burton DR
31. Baric RS
32. Voss JE
33. Chandran K
34. Dye JM
35. McLellan JS
36. Walker LM
(2020) Broad neutralization of SARS-related viruses by human monoclonal antibodies
Science 369:731–736.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc7424
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Preprint
(2020) Severe COVID-19 Patients Display a Back Boost of Seasonal Coronavirus-Specific Antibodies
medRxiv.

https://doi.org/10.1102/2021.05.25.21257797
- Google Scholar
1. Williamson EJ
2. Walker AJ
3. Bhaskaran K
4. Bacon S
5. Bates C
6. Morton CE
7. Curtis HJ
8. Mehrkar A
9. Evans D
10. Inglesby P
11. Cockburn J
12. McDonald HI
13. MacKenna B
14. Tomlinson L
15. Douglas IJ
16. Rentsch CT
17. Mathur R
18. Wong AYS
19. Grieve R
20. Harrison D
21. Forbes H
22. Schultze A
23. Croker R
24. Parry J
25. Hester F
26. Harper S
27. Perera R
28. Evans SJW
29. Smeeth L
30. Goldacre B
(2020) Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY
Nature 584:430–436.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wrapp D
2. Wang N
3. Corbett KS
4. Goldsmith JA
5. Hsieh CL
6. Abiona O
7. Graham BS
8. McLellan JS
(2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation
Science 367:1260–1263.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Wu K
2. Werner AP
3. Koch M
4. Choi A
5. Narayanan E
6. Stewart-Jones GBE
7. Colpitts T
8. Bennett H
9. Boyoglu-Barnum S
10. Shi W
11. Moliva JI
12. Sullivan NJ
13. Graham BS
14. Carfi A
15. Corbett KS
16. Seder RA
17. Edwards DK
(2021) Serum Neutralizing Activity Elicited by mRNA-1273 Vaccine
New England Journal of Medicine 384:1468–1470.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2102179
- Google Scholar
1. Xie X
2. Liu Y
3. Liu J
4. Zhang X
5. Zou J
6. Fontes-Garfias CR
7. Xia H
8. Swanson KA
9. Cutler M
10. Cooper D
11. Menachery VD
12. Weaver SC
13. Dormitzer PR
14. Shi P-Y
(2021) Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 spike 69/70 deletion, E484K and N501Y variants by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera
Nature Medicine 27:620–621.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01270-4
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Yang HS
2. Costa V
3. Racine-Brzostek SE
4. Acker KP
5. Yee J
6. Chen Z
7. Karbaschi M
8. Zuk R
9. Rand S
10. Sukhu A
11. Klasse PJ
12. Cushing MM
13. Chadburn A
14. Zhao Z
(2021) Association of Age With SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response
JAMA Network Open 4:e214302.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4302
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Zhu Z
2. Lian X
3. Su X
4. Wu W
5. Marraro GA
6. Zeng Y
(2020) From SARS and MERS to COVID-19: a brief summary and comparison of severe acute respiratory infections caused by three highly pathogenic human coronaviruses
Respiratory Research 21:224.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-020-01479-w
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Zohar T
2. Alter G
(2020) Dissecting antibody-mediated protection against SARS-CoV-2
Nature Reviews. Immunology 20:392–394.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-0359-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar

Article and author information

Author details

Marloes Grobben

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

Contributed equally with
Karlijn van der Straten

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1559-9592
Karlijn van der Straten

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

Contributed equally with
Marloes Grobben

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6373-9302
Philip JM Brouwer

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2902-7739
Mitch Brinkkemper

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Pauline Maisonnasse

Center for Immunology of Viral, Auto-immune, Hematological and Bacterial Diseases (IMVA-HB/IDMIT), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Nathalie Dereuddre-Bosquet

Center for Immunology of Viral, Auto-immune, Hematological and Bacterial Diseases (IMVA-HB/IDMIT), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Brent Appelman

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
AH Ayesha Lavell

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Lonneke A van Vught

Center for Experimental Molecular Medicine, AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Judith A Burger

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Meliawati Poniman

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Melissa Oomen

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Dirk Eggink

National Institute for Public Health and The Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Tom PL Bijl

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Hugo DG van Willigen

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Elke Wynberg

Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD), Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Bas J Verkaik

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Orlane JA Figaroa

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Peter J de Vries

Tergooi Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Tessel M Boertien

Tergooi Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Amsterdam UMC COVID-19 S3/HCW study group

Contribution
Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Marije K Bomers

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Jonne J Sikkens

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Roger Le Grand

University of Paris, Paris, France

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Menno D de Jong

Department of Medical Microbiology & Infection Prevention, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Maria Prins

Center for Immunology of Viral, Auto-immune, Hematological and Bacterial Diseases (IMVA-HB/IDMIT), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France

Contribution
Resources, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Amy W Chung

The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Contribution
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Godelieve J de Bree

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Rogier W Sanders

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared
Marit J van Gils

Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contribution
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

For correspondence
m.j.vangils@amsterdamumc.nl

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3422-8161

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (91818627)

Rogier W Sanders

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (10430022010023)

Marije K Bomers

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-002022)

Rogier W Sanders

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV008818)

Rogier W Sanders

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-024617)

Marit J van Gils

UMC Utrecht (Amsterdam Corona Research Fund)

Marije K Bomers

Albani Fonden

Marit J van Gils

National Health and Medical Research Council

Amy W Chung

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

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the participants of the COSCA and the S3-study for their contribution to this research. In addition, we thank the research team of the RECoVERD/VIS-cohort study for assisting with the recruitment and inclusion of participants. We thank Gestur Vidarsson and Federica Linty of Sanquin, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, for providing the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. We thank Mathieu AF Claireaux, Aafke Aartse, Ronald Derking, and Jonne L Snitselaar for providing assay controls and Aafke Aartse for manuscript editing.

This work was supported by a Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Vici grant no. 91818627 (to RWS) and NWO ZonMw grant no. 10430022010023 (to MKB); by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grants INV-002022, INV008818 (to RWS) and INV-024617 (to MJvG); by the Amsterdam UMC Corona Research Fund (to MKB); by an AMC Fellowship from Amsterdam UMC (to MJvG), and by an NHMRC career development fellowship (to AWC). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or data reporting.

Ethics

Human subjects: For the convalescent COVID-19 sera, approval was granted by the ethical review board of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, the Netherlands (NL 73281.018.20). For the healthy controls, anonymized leftover serum from routine diagnostics for which ethical approval was waived by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment was used. The study was performed in accordance with the guidelines for sharing of patient data of observational scientific research in emergency situations as issued by the Commission on Codes of Conduct of the Foundation Federation of Dutch Medical Scientific Societies (https://www.federa.org/federa-english). For the pre- and post-vaccination sera, approval was granted by the local ethical committees of both Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC and location VUMC (NL73478.029.20).

All animals from which samples were used in this study were housed in IDMIT infrastructure facilities (CEA, Fontenay-aux-roses) under BSL-2 and BSL-3 containment when necessary (animal facility authorization #D92-032-02, Préfecture des Hauts de Seine, France) and incompliance with European Directive 2010/63/EU, the French regulations and the Standards for Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, of the Office for Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW, assurance number #A5826-01, US). The protocols were approved by the institutional ethical committee 'Comité d'Ethique en Expérimentation Animale du Commissariat; l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives' (CEtEA #44) under statement number A20-011. The study was authorized by the 'Research, Innovation and Education Ministry' under registration number APAFIS#24434-2020030216532863v1.

Copyright

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

Metrics

3,551

views
307

downloads
74

citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

Mendeley

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

Marloes Grobben
Karlijn van der Straten
Philip JM Brouwer
Mitch Brinkkemper
Pauline Maisonnasse
Nathalie Dereuddre-Bosquet
Brent Appelman
AH Ayesha Lavell
Lonneke A van Vught
Judith A Burger
Meliawati Poniman
Melissa Oomen
Dirk Eggink
Tom PL Bijl
Hugo DG van Willigen
Elke Wynberg
Bas J Verkaik
Orlane JA Figaroa
Peter J de Vries
Tessel M Boertien
Amsterdam UMC COVID-19 S3/HCW study group
Marije K Bomers
Jonne J Sikkens
Roger Le Grand
Menno D de Jong
Maria Prins
Amy W Chung
Godelieve J de Bree
Rogier W Sanders
Marit J van Gils

(2021)

Cross-reactive antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

eLife 10:e70330.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70330

Categories and tags

Research organism

Human

Share this article

Cite this article

SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in COVID-19 patients.

Figure 1—source data 1

Cross-reactivity to hCoV S proteins in convalescent COVID-19 sera.

Figure 2—source data 1

Depletion of S1 and S2 subdomain-specific cross-reactivity in convalescent COVID-19 sera.

Figure 3—source data 1

Cross-reactivity and depletion of cross-reactivity to hCoV S proteins in immunized macaques.

Figure 4—source data 1

Figure 5—source data 1

Author details

Marloes Grobben

Contribution

Contributed equally with

Competing interests

Karlijn van der Straten

Contribution

Contributed equally with

Competing interests

Philip JM Brouwer

Contribution

Competing interests

Mitch Brinkkemper

Contribution

Competing interests

Pauline Maisonnasse

Contribution

Competing interests

Nathalie Dereuddre-Bosquet

Contribution

Competing interests

Brent Appelman

Contribution

Competing interests

AH Ayesha Lavell

Contribution

Competing interests

Lonneke A van Vught

Contribution

Competing interests

Judith A Burger

Contribution

Competing interests

Meliawati Poniman

Contribution

Competing interests

Melissa Oomen

Contribution

Competing interests

Dirk Eggink

Contribution

Competing interests

Tom PL Bijl

Contribution

Competing interests

Hugo DG van Willigen

Contribution

Competing interests

Elke Wynberg

Contribution

Competing interests

Bas J Verkaik

Contribution

Competing interests

Orlane JA Figaroa

Contribution

Competing interests

Peter J de Vries

Contribution

Competing interests

Tessel M Boertien

Contribution

Competing interests

Amsterdam UMC COVID-19 S3/HCW study group

Contribution

Competing interests

Marije K Bomers

Contribution

Competing interests