Abstract
The durability of infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity has major implications for public health mitigation and vaccine development. Animal studies1,2 and the scarcity of confirmed re-infection3 suggests immune protection is likely, although the durability of this protection is debated. Lasting immunity following acute viral infection requires maintenance of both serum antibody and antigen-specific memory B and T lymphocytes and is notoriously pathogen specific, ranging from life-long for smallpox or measles4, to highly transient for common cold coronaviruses (CCC)5. Neutralising antibody responses are a likely correlate of protective immunity and exclusively recognise the viral spike (S) protein, predominantly targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the S1 sub-domain6. Multiple reports describe waning of S-specific antibodies in the first 2-3 months following infection7-12. However, extrapolation of early linear trends in decay might be overly pessimistic, with several groups reporting that serum neutralisation is stable over time in a proportion of convalescent subjects8,12-17. While SARS-CoV-2 specific B and T cell responses are readily induced by infection6,13,18-24, the longitudinal dynamics of these key memory populations remains poorly resolved. Here we comprehensively profiled antibody, B and T cell dynamics over time in a cohort recovered from mild-moderate COVID-19. We find that binding and neutralising antibody responses, together with individual serum clonotypes, decay over the first 4 months post-infection, as expected, with a similar decline in S-specific CD4+ and circulating T follicular helper (cTFH) frequencies. In contrast, S-specific IgG+ memory B cells (MBC) consistently accumulate over time, eventually comprising a significant fraction of circulating MBC. Modelling of the concomitant immune kinetics predicts maintenance of serological neutralising activity above a titre of 1:40 in 50% of convalescent subjects to 74 days, with probable additive protection from B and T cells. Overall, our study suggests SARS-CoV-2 immunity after infection is likely to be transiently protective at a population level. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may require greater immunogenicity and durability than natural infection to drive long-term protection.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Victorian 456 Government, an Australian government Medical Research Future Fund award GNT2002073 (SJK, MPD, and AKW), the ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science and Technology (SJK), an NHMRC program grant APP1149990 (SJK and MPD), NHMRC project grant GNT1162760 (AKW), an NHMRC-EU collaborative award APP1115828 (SJK and MPD), the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement 681137 (SJK), Emergent Ventures Fast Grants (AWC), the Jack Ma Foundation (KS) and the A2 Milk Company (KS). JAJ, DSK, and SJK are supported by NHMRC fellowships. JJW is supported by Flinders University DVCR Fellowship and Flinders Health & Medical Research Institute COVID-19 Research Grant. AKW, KS, DC and MPD are supported by NHMRC Investigator grants. The Melbourne WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza is supported by the Australian Government Department of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocols were approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (#2056689) and the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (#39.034), and all associated procedures were carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Typographic error in the abstract corrected
Data Availability
All data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
