A novel MARV glycoprotein-specific antibody with potentials of broad-spectrum neutralization to filovirus

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary and Strengths:

Zhang et al. conducted a study in which they isolated and characterized a Marburg virus (MARV) glycoprotein-specific antibody, AF-03. The antibody was obtained from a phage-display library. The study shows that AF-03 competes with the previously characterized MARV-neutralizing antibody MR78, which binds to the virus's receptor binding site. The authors also performed GP mutagenesis experiments to confirm that AF-03 binds near the receptor binding site. In addition, the study confirmed that AF-03, like MR78, can neutralize Ebola viruses with cleaved glycoproteins. Finally, the authors demonstrated that NPC2-fused AF-03 was effective in neutralizing several filovirus species.

Weaknesses:

1. The main premise of this study is unclear. Flyak et al. in 2015 described the isolation and characterization of a large panel of neutralizing antibodies from a Marburg survivor (Flyak et al., Cell, 2015). Based on biochemical and structural characterization, Flyak proposed that the Marburg neutralizing antibodies bind to the NPC1 receptor binding side. In the same study, it has been shown that several MARV-neutralizing antibodies can bind to cleaved Ebola glycoproteins that were enzymatically treated to remove the mucin-like domain and glycan cap. In the following study, it has been shown that the bispecific-antibody strategy can be used to deliver Marburg-specific antibodies into the endosome, where they can neutralize Ebola viruses (Wec et al., Science 2016). Finally, the use of lysosome-resident protein NPC2 to deliver antibody cargos to late endosomes has been previously described (Wirchnianski et al., Front. Immunol, 2021)

The above-mentioned studies are not referenced in the introduction. The authors state that "there is no licensed treatment or vaccine for Marburg [virus] infection." While this is true, there are human antibodies that recognize neutralizing epitopes - that information can't be excluded while providing the rationale for the study. Furthermore, the authors use the word "novel" to describe the AF-03 antibody. How novel is AF-03 if multiple Marburg-neutralizing antibodies were previously characterized in multiple studies? Since AF-03 competes with previously characterized MR78, it binds to the same antigenic region as MR78. AF-03 also has comparable neutralization potency as MR78.

2. Without the AF-03-MARV GP crystal structure, it's unclear how van der Waals interactions, H-bonds, and polar and electrostatic interactions can be evaluated. While authors use computer-guided homology modeling, this technique can't be used to determine critical interactions. Furthermore, Flyak et al. reported that binding to the NPC1 receptor binding site is the main mechanism of Marburg virus neutralization by human monoclonal antibodies. Since both AF-03 (this study) and MR78 (Flyak study) competed with each other, that information alone was sufficient for GP mutagenesis experiments that identified the NPC1 receptor binding site as the main region for mutagenesis.

3. The AF-03-GP affinity measurements were performed using bivalent IgG molecules and trimeric GP molecules. This format does not allow accurate measurements of affinity due to the avidity effect. The reported KD value is abnormally low due to avidity effects. The authors need to repeat the affinity experiments by immobilizing trimeric GPs and then adding monovalent AF-03 Fab.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors describe the discovery of a filovirus neutralizing antibody, AF03, by phage display, and its subsequent improvements to include NPC2 that resulted in a greater breadth of neutralization. Overall, the manuscript would benefit from considerable grammatical review, which would improve the communication of each point to the reader. The authors do not convincingly map the AF03 epitope, nor do they provide any strong support for their assumption that AF03 targets the NPC1 binding site. However, the authors do show that AF03 competes for MR78 binding to its epitope, and provides good support for the internalization of AF03-NL as the mechanism for improved breadth over the original AF03 antibody.

Strengths:

This study shows convincing binding to Marburgvirus GP and neutralization of Marburg viruses by AF03, as well as convincing neutralization of Ebolaviruses by AF03-NL. While there are no distinct populations of PE-stained cells shown by FACS in Figure 5A, the cell staining data in Figure 5C are compelling to a non-expert in endosomal staining like me. The control experiments in Figure 7 are compelling showing neutralization by AF03-NL but not AF03 or NPC2 alone or in combination. Altogether these data support the internalisation and stabilisation mechanism that is proposed for the gain in neutralization breadth observed for Ebolaviruses by AF03-NL over AF03 alone.

Weaknesses:

Overall, this reviewer is of the opinion that this paper is constructed haphazardly. For instance, the neutralization of mutant pseudoviruses is shown in Figure 2 before the concept of pseudovirus neutralization by AF03 is introduced in Figure 3. Similarly, the control experiments for AF03+NPC2 are described in Figure 7 after the data for breadth of neutralization are shown in Figure 6. GP quality controls are shown in Figure 2 after GP ELISAs / BLI experiments are done in Figure 1. This is disorienting for the reader.

Figure 1: The visualisation of AF03 modelling and docking endeavours is extremely difficult to interpret. Firstly, there is no effort to orient the non-specialist reader with respect to the Marburgvirus GP model. Secondly, from the figures presented it is impossible to tell if the Fv docks perfectly onto the GP surface, or if there are violent clashes between the deeply penetrating AF03 CDRs and GP. This information would be better presented on a white background, perhaps showing GP in surface view from multiple angles and slices. The authors attempt to label potential interactions, but these are impossible to read, and labels should be added separately to appropriately oriented zoomed-in views.

Figure 2: The neutralization of mutant pseudoviruses cannot be properly assessed using bar graphs. These data should be plotted as neutralization curves as they were done for the wild-type neutralization data in Figure 3. The authors conclude that Q128 & N129 are contact residues, but the neutralization data for this mutant appear odd as the lowest two concentrations of AF03 show higher neutralization than the second highest AF03 concentration. Neutralization of T204/Q205/T206 (green), Y218 (orange), K222 (blue), or C226 (purple) appears to be better than neutralization of the wild-type MARV. The authors do not discuss this oddity. What are the IC50's? The omission of antibody concentrations on the x-axis and missing IC50 values give a sense of obscuring the data, and the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency, and be much easier to interpret if these were included. I am intrigued that the Q128S/N129S mutant is reported as having little effect on the neutralization of MR78. The bar graph appears to show some effect (difficult to interpret without neutralization curves and IC50 data), and indeed PDB:5UQY seems to suggest that these amino acids form a central component of the MR78 epitope (Q128 forms potential hydrogen bonds with CDRH1 Y35 and CDRL3 Y91, while N129 packs against the MR78 CDRH3 and potentially makes additional polar contact with the backbone). Lastly, since neutralization was tested in both HEK293T cells and Huh7 cells in Figure 3, the authors should clarify which cells were used for neutralization in Figure 2.

Figure 3: The first two images in Figure 3C showing bioluminescent intensity from pseudovirus-injected mice pretreated with either 10mg/kg or 3mg/kg AF03 are identical images. This is apparent from the location, shape, and intensity of the bioluminescence, as well as the identical foot placement of each mouse in these two panels. Currently, this figure is incomplete and should be corrected to show the different mice treated with either 10mg/kg or 3mg/kg of AF03.

Figure 4 would benefit from a control experiment without antibodies comparing infection with GP-cleaved and GP-uncleaved pseudoviruses. The paragraph describing these data was also difficult to read and would benefit from additional grammatical review.

Figure 5: The authors should clarify in the methods section that the "mock" experiment included the PE anti-human IgG Fc antibody. Without this clarification, the lack of a distinct negative population in the FACS data could be interpreted as non-specific staining with PE. If the PE antibody was added at an equivalent concentration to all panels, what does the directionality of the arrowheads in Figure 5A (labelled PE) and 5B (labelled pHrodo Red) indicate?

Figure 6B: These data would benefit from the inclusion of IC50, transparency of antibody concentrations used, and consistency in the direction of antibody concentrations (increasing to the right or left of the x-axis) when compared to Figure 2.