Our latest preprint is out, where we investigated a profound SARS-CoV-2 epidemiological anomaly: BA.3.2.2 is selectively infecting children. Here, we show that the lack of ancestral-strain immune imprinting is promoting BA.3.2.2 pediatric infections. 1/9 biorxiv.org/content/10.648…
We find that children under 8 with no history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have very limited neutralization against BA.3.2.2. This is in stark contrast to children who have received the ancestral-strain vaccines (imprinted). These findings also echo David Ho's data. 2/9
We found that this imprinting dependency also holds true in adults. Weakly imprinted inactivated vaccine recipients exhibit significantly lower BA.3.2.2 neutralization titers than strongly imprinted mRNA-vaccinated individuals. 3/9
To validate this on a larger scale, we stratified a large inactivated-vaccinated cohort into highly imprinted vs weakly imprinted groups based on their NT50s fold-changes relative to D614G. The conclusion holds: weaker imprinting leads to reduced BA.3.2.2 neutralization. 4/9
Single-B-cell V(D)J sequencing reveals the mechanistic driver: strong ancestral imprinting enriches for IGHV3-53/66 public Class 1 antibodies (efficient against BA.3.2.2), whereas weak imprinting forces reliance on IGHV2-5/5-51 Class 1/4 antibodies (escaped by BA.3.2.2). 5/9
The evolutionary risk: if BA.3.2.2 scales up, Class 1 evading mutations like F456L or the 455-456 "FLip" combo are highly tolerated and maintain viral fitness. This would allow the lineage to erode the residual neutralizing immunity of strongly imprinted adults. 6/9
This means that the sustained transmission in children may catalyze BA.3.2.2 variants that combine pediatric-evading features with adult-evading Class 1 mutations (like F456L). This could allow the lineage to breach adult imprinted immunity and drive global transmission.
7/9
Key takeaways: Classic imprinting (original antigenic sin) is usually seen as a constraint, but here it serves as a protective factor. The functional outcome of imprinting should always be defined by the specific interactions between antigens and the host B cell repertoire.
8/9
We might also need to rethink pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Future strategies may need to weigh the immediate benefits of variant-matched antigens against the long-term necessity of establishing a broad antibody baseline to ensure balanced protection across all ages.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
KP.3 is starting to outcompete KP.2. Its unique Q493E mutation brings some critical features: 1) KP.3 has higher ACE2 binding affinity than KP.2. 2) KP.3 is more immune evasive. KP.3 +31del (KP.3.1.1) is the most. 3) KP.3 is especially good at evading Class 1 antibodies.
Q493E of KP.3 may have an epistasis effect with the F456L mutation, resulting in the increase of ACE2 binding affinity. This is important since strong ACE2 binding would allow KP.3 to easily accumulate highly immune evasive RBD mutations, such as A475V.
Q493E enables KP.3 to escape a lot of Class 1 V3-53/66 encoded mAbs, even if elicited by JN.1 infection. Since these V3-53/66 NAbs are highly enriched in mRNA vaccine recipients, we would expect KP.3 and KP.2 to show substantial immune evasion even with JN.1 mRNA boosters.
New study. We compared the immune response of XBB and JN.1 in human infections to evaluate the necessity for #SARSCOV2 vaccine updates
Results:
JN.1 exposure induces higher neutralization against emerging mutants, including FLiRT (JN.1+346T+456L) and KP.3 biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Since JN.1 lineages have replaced XBB lineages and JN.1 subvariants are continuously gaining immune-evasive mutations, such as R346T, F456L, R346T+F456L (FLiRT), and F456L+Q493E (KP.3), it's time to evaluate whether we need to switch SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antigen to JN.1.
(2/7)
We first compared the antibody response of XBB and JN.1 infection in SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals (people who weren't vaccinated and haven't been infected). Similar to naive mice, we found that XBB and JN.1 lineages are also antigenic distinct in naive humans.
(3/7)
Imagine we can identify JN.1-neutralizing mAbs at the start of the pandemic, how revolutionary it would be for COVID mAb drug development. Here we provide a strategy to select potent SARS-CoV-2 broad-spectrum mAbs when we only know the ancestral strain. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Many studies have claimed the discovery of “SARS-CoV-2 bnAbs” based on the efficacy against known variants at that time. However, most of these "bnAbs" were rapidly escaped by subsequent viral evolution.
This is because “neutralization against known variants” is a poor indicator for true bnAbs against fast-evolving pathogens.
Inferred from a retrospective analysis of our SARS-CoV-2 mAb collection, we found that among the potent mAbs available at the early stage of the pandemic, only 1~3% could remain effective for more than two years.
If we could rationally identify bnAbs that remain potent against future variants, it would revolutionize mAb drug development against evolving viruses.
(2/9)
Previously, we showed the possibility of accurately predicting SARS-CoV-2 RBD evolution by aggregating high-throughput antibody DMS results.
Therefore, we hypothesize that if we use constructed pseudoviruses carrying predicted mutations as filters, we could screen for those "true" bnAbs as drug candidates, even when no knowledge of real-world viral evolution was available.
To demonstrate whether this strategy would work, we used the DMS profiles of mAbs elicited by SARS-CoV-2 WT infection/vaccination, which were the only data available early in the pandemic, and constructed pseudoviruses (B.1-S1~S5) harboring mutations on the identified hotspots.
(3/9)nature.com/articles/s4158…
Our paper on JN.1 is now online @TheLancetInfDis!
The manuscript explains how a single RBD mutation L455S could turn BA.2.86 into a heavy immune evasive variant JN.1.
Notably, JN.1 is now approaching worldwide dominance (42% two weeks ago). thelancet.com/journals/lanin…
Two months ago, we warned about JN.1 due to its extreme immune evasion. The reason why we paid attention to JN.1 so early is that we know BA.2.86 is very weak to Class 1 antibodies and L455S is one of the strongest Class 1 antibody escaping mutations. 2/6
Many labs have shown that BA.2.86 is well-neutralized. However, the absolute neutralizing titers cannot tell the full story. Since the majority of BA.2.86-neutralizing Abs are from a single epitope, huge changes in titers could happen when BA.2.86 acquires critical mutations. 3/6
Our research on how repeated Omicron exposure mitigates ancestral strain immune imprinting is finally out in @Nature!
In this paper, we found that multiple Omicron exposures can induce high proportions of Omicron-specific Abs that target new RBD epitopes.
There is an additional burning question following this study. In this paper, we showed that 3 doses of inactivated vaccination + 2 Omicron infection could override immune imprinting. However, multiple studies using mRNA vaccine cohorts did not see this phenomenon.
Updates on BA.2.86. 1) BA.2.86's ACE2 binding affinity is very high. 2) BA.2.86 has lower fusogenicity than XBB.1.5. 3) BA.2.86's infectivity in Vero cells is similar to BA.1, lower than XBB.1.5. 4) Structure analysis shows that BA.2.86's Spike prefers RBD "down" conformation.
BA.2.86's RBD showed a pretty high hACE2 binding affinity measured by SPR, higher than that of XBB.1.5 and EG.5 and is even comparable to "FLip" variants like HK.3. BA.2.86's V483del indeed decreases ACE2 binding, but R403K is just too powerful and makes up for the loss. 2/n
We also measured the cell-cell fusion capability using Spike-transfected 293T cells and 293T-hACE2 cells. BA.2.86 showed a lower fusogenicity than XBB.1.5, despite the fact that BA.2.86's ACE2 binding affinity is much higher. Note this assay is free of pseudoviruses. 3/n