OVID-19 is caused by the recently emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While the majority of COVID-19 infections are relatively mild, with recovery typically within 2-3 weeks 1,2 , a significant number of patients develop severe illness, which is postulated to be related to both an overactive immune response and viral-induced pathology 3,4. The role of T cell immune responses in disease pathogenesis and longer-term protective immunity is currently poorly defined, but essential to understand in order to inform therapeutic interventions and vaccine design. Currently, there are many ongoing vaccine trials, but it is unknown whether they will provide long-lasting protective immunity. Most vaccines are designed to induce antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, but it is not yet known if this will be sufficient to induce full protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 (refs. 5-8). Studying natural immunity to the virus, including the role of SARS-CoV-2specific T cells, is critical to fill the current knowledge gaps for improved vaccine design. For many primary virus infections, it typically takes 7-10 d to prime and expand adaptive T cell immune responses in order to control the virus 9. This coincides with the typical time it takes for patients with COVID-19 to either recover or develop severe illness. There is an incubation time of 4-7 d before symptom onset and a further 7-10 d before individuals progress to severe disease 10 .

The race to produce vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 began when the first sequence was published, and this forms the basis for vaccines currently deployed globally. Independent lineages of SARS-CoV-2 have recently been reported: UK–B.1.1.7, South Africa–B.1.351 and Brazil–P.1. These variants have multiple changes in the immunodominant spike protein which facilitates viral cell entry via the Angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptor. Mutations in the receptor recognition site on the spike are of great concern for their potential for immune escape. Here we describe a structure-function analysis of B.1.351 using a large cohort of convalescent and vaccinee serum samples. The receptor binding domain mutations provide tighter ACE2 binding and widespread escape from monoclonal antibody neutralization largely driven by E484K although K417N and N501Y act together against some important antibody classes. In a number of cases it would appear that convalescent and some vaccine serum offers limited protection against this variant.

Terminating the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic relies upon pan-global vaccination. Current vaccines elicit neutralizing antibody responses to the virus spike derived from early isolates. However, new strains have emerged with multiple mutations: P.1 from Brazil, B.1.351 from South Africa and B.1.1.7 from the UK (12, 10 and 9 changes in the spike respectively). All have mutations in the ACE2 binding site with P.1 and B.1.351 having a virtually identical triplet: E484K, K417N/T and N501Y, which we show confer similar increased affinity for ACE2. We show that, surprisingly, P.1 is significantly less resistant to naturally acquired or vaccine induced antibody responses than B.1.351 suggesting that changes outside the RBD impact neutralisation. Monoclonal antibody 222 neutralises all three variants despite interacting with two of the ACE2 binding site mutations, we explain this through structural analysis and use the 222 light chain to largely restore neutralization potency to a major class of public antibodies.

Highlights d Original strain convalescent and vaccine sera show reduced B.1.1.7 neutralization d N501Y enhances RBD: ACE2 binding affinity d N501Y compromises neutralization by many antibodies with public V-region IGHV3-53 d No widespread escape by B.1.1.7 was observed

Highlights d Map 377 mAbs: 19 of 80 recognizing the RBD are potent neutralizers; 1 potent NTD binder d 19 Fab-antigen complex structures; 80 mAbs mapped on RBD and clustered into 5 epitopes d Most potent mAbs are ACE2 blockers, neutralize with few ACE2s, some Fabs glycosylated d mAbs reveal unique examples of NTD binding, RBD binding mode, and LC optimization

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA. Methods We did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds. Findings At the manufacturers' thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2–94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 95·0% (92·8–96·7) and specificity was 98·7% (97·7–99·3); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8–99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1–99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4–98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3–100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6–99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset. Interpretation Four commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health. Funding Public Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. Methods: We tested plasma for COVID (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). Results: ELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested ≥10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. Conclusions: Currently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.