Background A correlate of protection (CoP) is an immunological marker associated with protection against infection. Despite an urgent need, a CoP for SARS-CoV-2 is currently undefined. Objectives Our objective was to review the evidence for a humoral correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern. Methods We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Biosis Previews and Scopus to January 4, 2022 and pre-prints (using NIH iSearch COVID-19 portfolio) to December 31, 2021, for studies describing SARS-CoV-2 re-infection or breakthrough infection with associated antibody measures. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and performed quality assessment. Results Twenty-five studies were included in our systematic review. Two studies examined the correlation of antibody levels to VE, and reported values from 48.5% to 94.2%. Similarly, several studies found an inverse relationship between antibody levels and infection incidence, risk, or viral load, suggesting that both humoral immunity and other immune components contribute to protection. However, individual level data suggest infection can still occur in the presence of high levels of antibodies. Two studies estimated a quantitative CoP: for Ancestral SARS-CoV-2, these included 154 (95% confidence interval (CI) 42, 559) anti-S binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL), and 28.6% (95% CI 19.2, 29.2%) of the mean convalescent antibody level following infection. One study reported a CoP for the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of concern of 171 (95% CI 57, 519) BAU/mL. No studies have yet reported an Omicron-specific CoP. Conclusions Our review suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 CoP is likely relative, where higher antibody levels decrease the risk of infection, but do not eliminate it completely. More work is urgently needed in this area to establish a SARS-CoV-2 CoP and guide policy as the pandemic continues.

We analyzed 21,676 residual specimens from Ontario, Canada collected between March-August, 2020 to investigate the effect of antibody decline on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates. Testing specimens orthogonally using the Abbott (anti-nucleocapsid) and then the Ortho (anti-spike) assays, seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.4%-1.4%, despite ongoing disease activity. The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of antibody-positive specimens decreased over time (p=0.015), and the GMC of antibody-negative specimens increased over time (p=0.0018). The association between the two tests decreased each month (p<0.001), suggesting anti-N antibody decline. Lowering the Abbott antibody index cut-off from 1.4 to 0.7 resulted in a 16% increase in positive specimens.

Background: A correlate of protection (CoP) is an immunological marker associated with protection against infection. A CoP can be used to determine whether an individual is protected from infection, evaluate candidate vaccines, guide vaccination dosing intervals and policy, and understand population-level immunity against a pathogen. Despite an urgent need, a CoP for SARS-CoV-2 is currently undefined, leaving an evidence gap for informing public health policy and adapting it appropriately as new variants of concern emerge. The objective of this study was to systematically review and assess the evidence for a humoral SARS-CoV-2 CoP. Methods and Findings: We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Biosis Previews and Scopus from inception to January 4, 2022 and pre-prints (using NIH iSearch COVID-19 portfolio) from inception to December 31, 2021, for studies describing SARS-CoV-2 re-infection or breakthrough infection with associated antibody measures. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and performed quality assessment. Twenty-five studies were included in our systematic review. Several studies reported re-infection or breakthrough cases that occurred in the presence of robust antibody levels. Studies that compared aggregate antibody concentrations from individuals who experienced re-infection or breakthrough compared to those who remained protected did not always find differences that were statistically significant. However, several studies found an inverse relationship between antibody levels and infection incidence, risk, or viral load, and a correlation between antibody levels and vaccine efficacy (VE). Estimates of the contribution of antibody levels to VE varied from 48.5% to 94.2%, suggesting that both humoral immunity and other immune components contribute to protection. Only two studies estimated a quantitative CoP. For Ancestral SARS-CoV-2, these included 154 (95% confidence interval (CI) 42, 559) anti-S binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL), and 28.6% (95% CI 19.2, 29.2%) of the mean convalescent antibody level following infection. One study reported a CoP for the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of concern of 171 (95% CI 57, 519) BAU/mL. As of our search date, no studies reported an Omicron-specific CoP. Conclusions: The reviewed literature was limited by a wide variation in assay methodology and antibody targets. Few studies reported SARS-CoV-2 lineage. The studies included in our review suggest that if it exists, a SARS-CoV-2 CoP is likely relative, where higher antibody levels decrease the risk of infection, but do not eliminate it completely. More work is urgently needed in this area to establish a SARS-CoV-2 CoP and guide policy as the pandemic continues.

We analyzed 21,676 residual specimens from Ontario, Canada collected between March-August, 2020 to investigate the effect of antibody decline on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates. Testing specimens orthogonally using the Abbott (anti-nucleocapsid) and then the Ortho (anti-spike) assays, seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.4%-1.4%, despite ongoing disease activity. The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of antibody-positive specimens decreased over time (p=0.015), and the GMC of antibody-negative specimens increased over time (p=0.0018). The association between the two tests decreased each month (p<0.001), suggesting anti-N antibody decline. Lowering the Abbott index cut-off from 1.4 to 0.7 resulted in a 16% increase in positive specimens.

Regulatory networks often increase in complexity during evolution through gene duplication and divergence of component proteins. Two models that explain this increase in complexity are: 1) adaptive changes after gene duplication, such as resolution of adaptive conflicts, and 2) non-adaptive processes such as duplication, degeneration and complementation. Both of these models predict complementary changes in the retained duplicates, but they can be distinguished by direct fitness measurements in organisms with short generation times. Previously, it has been observed that repeated duplication of an essential protein in the spindle checkpoint pathway has occurred multiple times over the eukaryotic tree of life, leading to convergent protein domain organization in its duplicates. Here, we replace the paralog pair in S. cerevisiae with a single-copy protein from a species that did not undergo gene duplication. Surprisingly, using quantitative fitness measurements in laboratory conditions stressful for the spindle-checkpoint pathway, we find no evidence that reorganization of protein function after gene duplication is beneficial. We then reconstruct several evolutionary intermediates from the inferred ancestral network to the extant one, and find that, at the resolution of our assay, there exist stepwise mutational paths from the single protein to the divergent pair of extant proteins with no apparent fitness defects. Parallel evolution has been taken as strong evidence for natural selection, but our results suggest that even in these cases, reorganization of protein function after gene duplication may be explained by neutral processes.