• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
virology blog

virology blog

About viruses and viral disease

immunity

Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein May Not Be Reliable Markers for Infection in Vaccinated People

3 November 2022 by Gertrud U. Rey

by Gertrud U. Rey

You are fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and have presumably never been infected with the virus. But how can you know for sure? One way to find out is by testing your blood for the presence of antibodies against the viral nucleocapsid protein, which can only be encountered during natural infection. This is because all of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines used in the U.S. only encode the viral spike protein (none encode nucleocapsid [N] protein), and thus they only stimulate production of antibodies against spike. This approach differentiates between vaccine- and virus infection-induced antibodies and allows one to accurately determine whether a vaccinated person was naturally infected. Or so we thought until now.

Two recent letters to the editor of the Journal of Infection note that not every natural infection induces production of anti-nucleocapsid (or, “anti-N”) antibodies. The letters cast doubt on whether these antibodies are reliable markers for a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The authors of the first letter measured antibody responses in 4,111 vaccinated and 974 unvaccinated Irish healthcare workers. Only 23 of the vaccinated participants, all of whom had received two doses of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection at some time after vaccination. As expected, each of the 23 individuals had antibodies against the spike protein, but surprisingly, only six (26%) had detectable anti-N antibodies. In contrast, 82% of unvaccinated participants with a previous PCR-confirmed infection had detectable anti-N antibodies. This result suggests that anti-N antibodies may not be the most accurate indicators of a prior natural infection in vaccinated people; and it further implies that vaccinated individuals may neutralize incoming viruses early during infection, thus preventing and/or limiting their ability to develop antibodies against nucleocapsid protein.

The second letter, which was written in response to the first letter, confirmed and further substantiated these results. Citing data from serosurveys done in Japan, the authors showed that patients who were infected within two months of a third dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine were less likely to experience COVID-19 symptoms than patients who were infected 4-8 months after the third dose. These findings are in line with our current understanding of sterilizing immunity, a type of immunity that prevents both disease and infection, which appears to occur most often during the months following vaccination, when high levels of vaccine-induced antibodies probably sequester an incoming virus before it has a chance to infect cells. The authors also showed that participants infected within two months of their third vaccine dose had significantly lower levels of anti-N antibodies than those infected several months later. Although this result seems surprising at first, it actually further supports the notion that vaccination only induces sterilizing immunity for a short time after vaccination, when existing vaccine-induced anti-spike antibodies neutralize incoming virus before the immune system has a chance to respond to the virus and produce antibodies specific to the nucleocapsid protein.

The authors of both letters further mention that COVID-19 patients who experienced symptoms were more likely to have detectable anti-N antibodies than were patients without symptoms, an observation that is in agreement with serological surveys done before vaccines became available. This finding suggests that patients who developed symptoms did not have sterilizing immunity and were subject to a productive viral infection that led to the development of symptoms and production of antibodies to nucleocapsid and other viral proteins.

These two studies provide an interesting perspective of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated people, and they may inform better strategies for gauging infection after vaccination.

Filed Under: Basic virology, Gertrud Rey Tagged With: antibodies, immunity, natural infection, nucleocapsid, nucleocapsid protein, SARS-CoV-2, spike glycoprotein, sterilizing immunity, vaccine-induced antibodies

Spikevax Induces Durable Protection from the Delta Variant in Rhesus Macaques

4 November 2021 by Gertrud U. Rey

by Gertrud U. Rey

It is currently not clear how long SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity lasts. The gold standard for determining the efficacy of a vaccine is the “challenge” study, which involves intentionally infecting immunized subjects with the pathogen against which they were immunized. Such studies are typically done in non-human primates, because it is unethical to deliberately infect humans with pathogens that cause serious morbidity and mortality.

A recent preprint by Kizzmekia Corbett and others describes experiments done to assess the efficacy of Moderna’s SARS-CoV-2 “Spikevax” vaccine in rhesus macaques one year after vaccination. The authors immunized eight animals with two doses of Spikevax at four-week intervals and then collected blood samples, nasal swabs, and lung wash samples at various time points over the course of the following year. The macaques were then challenged with the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant virus at 49 weeks, and more samples were collected at different time points after challenge.

Blood samples collected at 6, 24, and 48 weeks post-vaccination were used to analyze the ability of IgG antibodies in these samples to bind the receptor-binding domains of three different viruses: 1) “ancestral” SARS-CoV-2, which had the exact spike protein antigen encoded in the vaccine, 2) the delta variant, and 3) the beta variant. These latter two had variant spike proteins. IgG antibodies are mostly blood-resident and provide the majority of antibody-based immunity against invading pathogens. IgG levels were highest at 6 weeks after vaccination for all three viruses; they then declined rapidly between 6 weeks and 24 weeks, and more slowly between 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Most IgG detected at 6 weeks bound ancestral virus, with 5.4-fold and 8-fold fewer IgG molecules binding the delta and beta variants, respectively. However, when delta and beta variant-specific IgG antibodies were tested for their ability to block binding between SARS-CoV-2 and its cognate ACE2 receptor, they inhibited almost 100% of binding of both delta and beta variant viruses, suggesting that the antibodies were still functional in preventing infection, in spite of their diminished quantity.

The ability of blood-resident IgG antibodies to neutralize the three respective viruses followed a similar trend, with a gradual decline in neutralizing activity against all viruses by 48 weeks post-vaccination. Interestingly, even though the quantity of total binding and neutralizing antibodies targeting the delta variant decreased over time, the number of antibodies targeting regions associated with neutralization increased. In addition, the binding avidity of antibodies to ancestral virus increased significantly between week 6 and 24 and remained steady through week 48 post-vaccination. In contrast to affinity, which measures the strength of the binding interaction between antigen and antibody at a single binding site, avidity measures the total binding strength of an antibody at every binding site. These two shifts – the increase in the number of antibodies binding targets associated with neutralization and the increase in antibody avidity over time in spite of a decrease in total antibody levels – are suggestive of a maturing immune response that is more focused on viral regions of high immunological relevance. It is noteworthy to mention that the regions associated with neutralization are outside of areas where the variant viruses have accumulated changes in the spike protein, further implying that Spikevax and other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are just as effective against viral variants as they are against ancestral virus.

Next, the authors analyzed lung wash samples and nasal swabs for delta-binding IgG and IgA antibodies. IgA antibodies are predominantly found in mucus membranes and their fluids, where they protect against invasion by inhaled and ingested pathogens. IgG kinetics in the lung were similar to those observed in the blood – both binding and neutralizing IgG to all three viruses were highest at 6 weeks after vaccination and decreased steadily over time until they were indistinguishable to those observed in unvaccinated animals. In contrast, IgG levels in the nose increased through week 25, plateaued, and remained stable through week 42 post-vaccination. IgA levels in the lung were highest at week 6 post-vaccination, but decreased to levels similar to those observed in unvaccinated animals by week 24. IgA levels in the nose were similar to those in unvaccinated animals at all time points. These results suggest that although SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may not induce a detectable mucosal immune response in the nose, it does induce good initial mucosal immunity in the lung, which is typically the site of severe COVID-19. This immunological difference between the lung and the nose might also explain why SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are more effective at preventing severe disease than at preventing infection.

The authors also analyzed blood samples from vaccinated animals for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells, which can quickly produce spike-specific antibodies upon subsequent exposure to SARS-CoV-2. At week 6 post-vaccination, about 0.14% of all memory B cells were specific for the ancestral virus, and about 0.09% were specific for the delta variant. In comparison, about 2.5% of all memory B cells were specific for both the ancestral virus and the delta variant, and this high proportion of dual-binding to single-binding cells remained constant through week 42 post-vaccination.

To see whether these vaccine-induced immune parameters are protective after viral challenge, the authors infected the animals with delta variant virus at 49 weeks after the initial immunization. Lung washes and nasal swabs were collected on days 2, 4, 7, and 14 after challenge to monitor viral replication. On day 2 after challenge, vaccinated animals had about 11-fold fewer viral RNA copies per milliliter in their lungs than unvaccinated animals, and these RNA levels declined rapidly over the following days. In contrast, viral RNA levels in unvaccinated animals remained significantly elevated through day 7 post-infection. Viral RNA levels in the nose followed a similar trend; however, their decline in vaccinated animals was not as dramatic as that observed in the lung.

Antibodies to all three viruses in the lungs of vaccinated animals were significantly higher on day 4 after challenge than at week 42 after immunization, suggesting that memory B cell responses to infection were quick and robust. Viral challenge after vaccination also induced both T helper cells, which stimulate B cells to make antibodies, and cytotoxic T cells, which kill virus-infected cells. Analysis of lung tissue also revealed that vaccination prevented lung pathology and protected the lower respiratory tract from severe inflammation after infection.

Perhaps the most interesting observation in the study relates to whether vaccinated individuals who become infected replicate and transmit virus to others. When the authors analyzed lung wash samples for T cells specific for the SARS-CoV-2 N protein, which is not encoded in the Spikevax vaccine, they only found these cells in unvaccinated animals. This suggests that even though it had been one year since vaccination, immunized animals that were then infected did not replicate the challenge virus to a sufficient extent to produce T cells specific for the SARS-CoV-2 N protein – a response that would only be elicited by actual infection with whole virus. In other words, the memory response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein induced by the vaccine eliminated incoming virus so quickly that the immune system had no chance to mount a response to the viral N protein encoded in the challenge virus, presumably because the virus was cleared quickly.

In summary, vaccinated animals appear to be better protected from severe disease and to clear virus faster than unvaccinated animals. This result aligns with data published in a previous preprint, which showed that viral RNA levels in delta variant-infected people who had been vaccinated prior to infection declined more rapidly than in people who were not vaccinated. And although monkeys are not human, previous studies assessing the protective efficacy of Spikevax have shown that rhesus macaques are reliably predictive of outcomes in humans, making them a great model for determining the effects of waning antibody levels on long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

[Kizzmekia Corbett, a viral immunologist at Harvard who was central to the development of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, was previously a guest on TWiV 670. The preprint described in this post was also discussed on TWiV 824.]

Filed Under: Basic virology, Gertrud Rey Tagged With: ACE2, antibody, antibody affinity, antibody avidity, delta variant, human challenge model, IgA, IgG, immunity, memory B cell, Moderna, mRNA-1273, mucosal immunity, neutralizing antibody, rhesus macaque, SARS-CoV-2, spike protein, vaccine, viral replication, viral RNA

How vaccines work

11 March 2021 by Vincent Racaniello

Vaccines work by educating the host’s immune system to recall the identity of a virus years after the initial encounter, a phenomenon called immune memory. Viral vaccines establish immunity and memory without the pathogenic consequences typical of a natural infection. The success of immunization in stimulating long-lived immune memory is among humanity’s greatest scientific and medical achievements.

Immune memory is maintained by dedicated T and B lymphocytes that remain after an infection has been resolved, and most activated immune cells have died. These memory cells can respond rapidly to a subsequent infection (Figure). Ideally, an effective and durable vaccine is one that induces and maintains significant numbers of memory cells. If the host is infected again with this same pathogen, the memory B and T cells initiate a response that rapidly controls the pathogen before disease develops. This paradigm is true for most human viruses for which vaccines exist, including measles, mumps, and varicella-zoster viruses and poliovirus. In some cases, antigenic variation, such as occurs with influenza virus, precludes complete protection by a memory immune response, necessitating re-vaccination.

Protection from Infection or Protection from Disease?

The memory response elicited by most human viral vaccines does not protect against reinfection, but rather against the development of disease. An individual may be exposed repeatedly to viruses and never be aware of it, because the memory response eliminates the virus before signs and symptoms develop. After vaccination with inactivated poliovirus vaccine, virus replication may take place in the intestine, but effectively blocks the development of poliomyelitis. On the other hand, the human papillomavirus vaccine is over 90% effective at blocking infection. Consequently the HPV vaccine induces sterilizing immunity.

Whether or not COVID-19 vaccines will block infection is unknown because it has not been adequately measured. The results of a few small studies suggest that some of the vaccines may prevent infection. However these studies are not conclusive because they are being done shortly after vaccination, when serum antibody levels are much higher than they will be in, say, 6 months. Only then will we have an accurate measure of how well vaccination blocks infection with SARS-CoV-2. I suspect that none of the COVID-19 vaccines will block infection, but will reduce virus reproduction sufficiently to impede transmission in the population.

Population-wide immunity (aka herd immunity)

To be effective, a vaccine must induce protective immunity in a significant fraction of the population. Not every individual in the population need be immunized to stop viral spread, but the number must be sufficiently high to impede virus transmission. Person-to-person transmission stops when the probability of infection drops below a critical threshold. This effect is called herd immunity.

The herd immunity threshold is calculated as 1- 1/R0. R0 is the number of nonimmune individuals that on average will be infected upon encounter with an actively infected individual. As the reproduction number, R0, increases the value of 1/R0 decreases, and thus 1 − 1/R0 gets closer to 1, or 100%. For smallpox virus, the herd immunity threshold is 80 to 85%, while for measles virus (which has a high R0), it is 93 to 95%. Early in the COVID-19 outbreak the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 was calculated to be 2-3, which would produce a herd immunity threshold of 50-70%.

Herd immunity only works when a vaccine either blocks infection, or sufficiently reduces virus reproduction in the host to impede person to person transmission. As stated above, I see no reason why COVID-19 vaccines will not sufficiently reduce transmission to enable herd immunity.

No vaccine is 100% effective at inducing immunity in a population. Consequently, the level of immunity is not equal to the number of people immunized. For example, when 80% of a population is immunized with measles vaccine, about 76% of the population is actually immune, well below the 93 to 95% required for herd immunity.

What about T cells?

For many virus infections, antibodies are crucial for preventing infection. However, resolution of infection often requires the action of cytotoxic T cells, which kill virus infected cells. For vaccines that do not induce sterilizing immunity, it is likely that T cells play a role in eliminating virus-infected cells and preventing the development of disease.

This division of labor has been largely ignored in the discussion of COVID-19 vaccines. Most of the dialog has concerned the induction of antibodies and their ability to neutralize virus infection. COVID-19 vaccines do induce virus-specific T cells and it is likely that these will clear infections that begin in vaccinated indivduals. It has been reported that amino acid changes in SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern do not affect T cell epitopes, and that T cell responses in individuals who have either recovered from infection or have been vaccinated are not affected by these changes. Therefore it seems likely that even if variants of concern are able to overcome to some degree previous antibody immunity, they will be cleared by T cell responses, avoiding severe disease and death. The results of the phase III trial of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine support this presumption.

Filed Under: Basic virology Tagged With: COVID-19, immune memory, immunity, pandemic, pathogenesis, SARS-CoV-2, vaccine, viral, virology, virus, viruses

TWiV 664: TWiV is for the dogs

17 September 2020 by Vincent Racaniello

On this mid-week edition, does it matter that SARS-CoV-2 is mutating, seasonal coronavirus immunity is short-lived, another bogus claim that the virus was produced in a laboratory (it came from Nature), and answers to listener questions.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 664 (73 MB .mp3, 122 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email

Become a patron of TWiV!

Show notes at microbe.tv/twiv

Filed Under: This Week in Virology Tagged With: common cold, coronavirus, COVID-19, D614G, immunity, mutation, pandemic, reinfection, SARS-CoV-2, viral, virology, virus, viruses

TWiV 659: Sloppy coronavirus immunity with Christian Drosten

10 September 2020 by Vincent Racaniello

Christian Drosten returns to TWiV to provide an update on the COVID-19 situation in Germany, and general thoughts on testing, immunity, vaccines, therapeutics, epidemiology, reopening schools, and what will happen this fall.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 659 (72 MB .mp3, 120 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email

Become a patron of TWiV!

Show notes at microbe.tv/twiv

Filed Under: This Week in Virology Tagged With: coronavirus, COVID-19, epidemiology, face mask, immunity, pandemic, reinfection, SARS-CoV-2, shedding, testing, transmission, vaccine, viral, virology, virus, viruses

SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: What does it mean?

27 August 2020 by Vincent Racaniello

coronavirus

Not only the popular press but even some of my distinguished science colleagues are claiming that the recent report of reinfection of a COVID-19 patient is the end of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

First, the facts. The patient is a healthy Hong Kong male who was diagnosed by PCR with SARS-CoV-2 infection on 26 March 2020, after developing cough, fever, sore throat and headache. He was hospitalized for two weeks and discharged on 14 April after two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests done 24 h apart.

Upon returning to Hong Kong from Spain on 15 August 2020, the patient was tested by PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and found to be positive. He was hospitalized but remained asymptomatic. Oropharyngeal viral loads gradually decreased during his hospital stay. Patient was IgG negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein 10 days after symptom onset for the first infection, and 1 day after hospitalization for the second episode. However a serum specimen taken 5 days after the second hospitalization was positive. I conclude that the first IgG test was likely negative because it was too soon after infection; an IgM test should have been done. It is very likely that the patient eventually became IgG positive after the first infection. However, levels of IgG appear to have decreased substantially in the ensuing months, allowing the second infection. IgG positivity on day 5 after the second infection is a classic memory response.

Whole genome sequence analysis of viruses isolated during the patient’s first and second infections clearly revealed that he was infected with two different isolates.

I am convinced that this patient was infected twice by two different isolates of SARS-CoV-2. The second infection is likely a consequence of waning anti-viral IgG antibodies. However, patient T cells were not studied. Such an analysis would have been useful because if virus-specific T cells had been found, it would have suggested why he did not develop disease upon reinfection.

This re-infection is the first of which I am convinced; the others are anecdotal and not supported by laboratory evidence. That gives us one reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in the nearly 25 million that have been detected so far. To be fair, there are likely other reinfections, and as time passes and antibody levels wane, there will be more. Should we worry?

As long as reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 do not cause disease, I am not worried. Could this patient transmit virus? He was clearly shedding virus the second time; whether it was enough to transmit is not known as PCR Ct values are not given in the manuscript. But if reinfections remain asymptomatic, it doesn’t matter if these infections transmit. Let’s say in the coming months, as antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 wane in the population, more and more reinfections occur. If none or few of them are symptomatic, why do we care about them? If SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate and causes little disease, it would have little impact.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in the absence of symptoms is reminiscent of the four seasonal coronaviruses. These viruses circulate widely and infect nearly everyone. Antibody levels appear to wane after each infection. Reinfections occur, but they are generally mild.

As the human population approaches 90% infection with SARS-CoV-2, we will likely see a pattern of waning immunity and reinfection in the absence of symptoms. As I’ve said before, SARS-CoV-2 will become the fifth common cold coronavirus.

Some have suggested that this reinfection story bodes ill for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. This conclusion is not necessarily true. First, we don’t yet know what kind of immunity the experimental vaccines will produce. There are a few possibilities. The vaccines might not work at all to prevent infection or disease. In this case we would have to depend on other approaches to limit mortality (Mina-style susceptibility testing, quarantine, perhaps antivirals). At the either extreme, some vaccines might prevent both infection and disease. I find this scenario highly unlikely, because not even natural infection can do that. Some of the vaccines in development might produce immunity approximating that of a natural infection – that is, it wanes soon after vaccination. Reinfection will likely occur, but in the absence of disease. The virus will continue to circulate, even in a population that has been widely vaccinated. This scenario will make the vaccine unnecessary at some point in the future.

The reinfected COVID-19 patient simply reinforces what we already knew about the pattern of infection caused by common cold coronaviruses: immunity wanes after infection, reinfection occurs, and there no disease.

Note added 9/1/20: A second reinfected patient has been identified in Nevada.

Filed Under: Basic virology, Commentary, Information Tagged With: antibody, common cold coronavirus, coronavirus, COVID-19, immunity, pandemic, reinfection, SARS-CoV-2, T cells, viral, virology, virus, viruses

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

by Vincent Racaniello

Earth’s virology Professor
Questions? virology@virology.ws

With David Tuller and
Gertrud U. Rey

Follow

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Get updates by RSS or Email

Contents

Table of Contents
ME/CFS
Inside a BSL-4
The Wall of Polio
Microbe Art
Interviews With Virologists

Earth’s Virology Course

Virology Live
Columbia U
Virologia en Español
Virology 101
Influenza 101

Podcasts

This Week in Virology
This Week in Microbiology
This Week in Parasitism
This Week in Evolution
Immune
This Week in Neuroscience
All at MicrobeTV

Useful Resources

Lecturio Online Courses
HealthMap
Polio eradication
Promed-Mail
Small Things Considered
ViralZone
Virus Particle Explorer
The Living River
Parasites Without Borders

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.