Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 variants accumulating immune escape mutations provide a significant risk to vaccine-induced protection. The novel variant of concern Omicron (B.1.1.529) has to date the largest number of amino acid alterations in its Spike protein. Thus, it may efficiently escape recognition by neutralizing antibodies, allowing breakthrough infections in convalescent and vaccinated individuals.
Aims We analysed neutralization activity of all mRNA-, vector- or heterologous immunization schemes currently approved in Europe at peak response and in a longitudinal follow-up with BNT162b2 vaccinees to define immune escape potential of the Omicron VoC.
Methods We tested sera by in vitro pseudotype particle neutralization assay towards SARS-CoV-2 B.1, Omicron, Beta and Delta Spike proteins.
Results All vaccines apart from Ad26.CoV2.S showed high levels of responder rates (93-100%) towards SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, but some reductions in neutralizing Beta and Delta VoC pseudotypes. The novel Omicron variant had the biggest impact, both in terms of response rates and neutralization titres among responders. Only mRNA-1273 showed a 100% response rate to Omicron and induced the highest titres of neutralizing antibodies, followed by heterologous prime-boost approaches. Homologous BNT162b2 vaccination or vector-based formulations with AZD1222 or Ad26.CoV2.S performed less well with peak responder rates of 33%, 50% and 9%, respectively. However, Omicron responder rates in BNT162b2 recipients were maintained in our six month longitudinal follow-up and even slightly increased to 47%, indicating Omicron cross-protection is maintained over time.
Conclusions Our data strongly argues for urgent booster doses particularly for those who were previously vaccinated with BNT162b2 or a vector-based immunization scheme.
Introduction
Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic with more than 270 million confirmed infections and more than 5 million deaths[1]. While a series of vaccines have been developed with unprecedented speed and were successfully deployed to limit the burden of COVID-19, it became quickly apparent that novel SARS-CoV-2 variants had evolved, mainly in areas of high virus prevalence. Those have accumulated mutations in the surface-exposed Spike protein, which increase virus transmissibility or promote evasion from the host immune response[2-4]. Immune escape was most pronounced in SARS-CoV-2 variants Beta (B.1.351) and the currently globally dominating Delta (B.1.617.2), at least until recently. However, the November 2021 emergence of the variant B.1.1.529 (Omicron) in South Africa has raised strong concerns as its unusually high number of amino acid alterations in the Spike protein will likely contribute to an increased reinfection risk or breakthrough infections following vaccination[5]. By now, a series of studies using samples from convalescent and vaccinated individuals have addressed the impact of Omicron on vaccination or infection-induced antibody neutralization, using either live-, pseudovirus neutralization or in vitro binding assays[6-14]. These studies have shown clear losses of neutralization capacity against the Omicron variant but did not comprehensively address antibody responses in various vaccination regimens or over time. In contrast, we provide here a comprehensive assessment of vaccination schemes approved in the European Union and the UK, using an Omicron, Beta, Delta or wild-type (B.1) pseudo-neutralization assay at peak response after approximately four weeks and in a longitudinal six month follow-up for BNT162b2.
Methods
Sample collection
Serum samples analyzed in this study originate from vaccinated participants of the multi-local and serial cross-sectional prevalence study on antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Germany (MuSPAD) study, a population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study in eight regions of Germany from July 2020 to August 2021. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hannover Medical School (9086_BO_S_2020) and was in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. Briefly, MuSPAD is a successive cross-sectional study where certain locations were sampled longitudinally within a 3-4 month interval [15]. Recruitment of eligible participants (>18 years) was based on age- and sex-stratified random sampling with information provided by the respective local residents’ registration offices. Basic sociodemographic data and information on pre-existing medical conditions including a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination are self-reported and were documented with eResearch system PIA (Prospective Monitoring and Management-App) at the study center. Peripheral blood was obtained by venipuncture using a serum gel S-Monovette (Sarstedt) and further processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Serum was then aliquoted at the German Red Cross Institute of Transfusion Medicine and Immunohematology and transported on dry ice to the Hannover Unified Biobank for long-term storage.
For this study, we selected 82 samples from the available sample pool to contain mRNA, vector- and heterologous immunization schemes at peak response and if available for a paired six month follow-up with BNT162b2 only. None of the donors reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen or PCR test result and were non-reactive for nucleocapsid–specific IgG, excluding confounders due to infections superposed on vaccination in our cohort. Vaccination details with basic sociodemographic information and pre-existing conditions such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, immunosuppression or cancer of participants are provided in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1. As controls, the first WHO International Standard for human anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (code: 20/136) from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) or pre-pandemic sera samples from an anonymized Hepatitis A and Influenza virus vaccination response study at the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in 2014 (Hannover Medical School Ethics Committee approval number 2198-2021) were used.
(na: not applicable)
Cell culture
Vero E6 (ATCC CRL-1586), and 293T (DSMZ ACC-635) were maintained in DMEM medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 µg/ml streptomycin at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 atmosphere. All cell lines used within this study were below a passage of 50 and were regularly checked for mycoplasma contamination. Transfection of 293T cells was performed using calcium-phosphate.
Plasmids
Plasmids encoding SARS-CoV-2 Spike B.1 (human codon optimized, 18 amino acid truncation at C-terminus) and SARS-CoV-2 spike of Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2) have been previously reported [16-18]. The expression vector for SARS-CoV-2 Spike of Omicron (based on isolate hCoV-19/Botswana/R40B58_BHP_3321001245/2021; GISAID Accession ID: EPI_ISL_6640919) was generated by Gibson assembly [13]. An overview of mutations is present in Supplementary Table S2. All plasmids were sequence-confirmed by Sanger sequencing prior to use.
Pseudotyping
Generation of rhabdoviral pseudotypes harboring SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins was performed as described[19]. In brief, 293T cells were transfected with pCG1 plasmids expressing different SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins, using calcium-phosphate. 24 h post transfection, cells were infected with a replication-deficient reporter VSV-G (VSV*ΔG-Fluc) at an MOI of 3 for 1 h at 37 °C [20]. Cells were washed once with PBS and medium containing anti-VSV-G antibody (culture supernatant from L1-hybridoma cells) was added to neutralize residual input virus. The cell culture supernatant was harvested after 16 hours, and cellular debris was removed by centrifugation at 2.000 g for 5 min at 4 °C. Aliquots were stored at -80°C until use.
Neutralization assay
For pseudovirus neutralization, serum samples and controls were heat-inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min. Thawed samples and controls were stored at 4°C for no longer than 48 hours, prior to use. In a 96-well microtiter plate, serum samples were 2-fold serially diluted in cell culture medium (DMEM, 5 % FBS, 1% P/S, 1% L-Glu) with a dilution range of 1:10 to 1:5120. Pre-diluted samples were incubated with an equal volume of Spike protein-bearing viral particles (approx. 200 – 500 ffu/well) at 37 °C for 1 h. After incubation, the sample-virus mixture was transferred to VeroE6 cells at 100% confluence which were seeded the day before. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 24±2 h and infected cells were visualized using an IncuCyte S3 (Sartorius) performing whole-well scans (4x) in phase contrast and green fluorescence settings. Automated segmentation and fluorescent foci counting was performed using the IncuCyte GUI software (versions 2019B Rev1 and 2021B) Raw data were plotted in GraphPad prism (v8) and FRNT50 was calculated with a variable slope, four parameter regression analysis. Non-responders were defined as subjects with undetectable neutralization titers at an initial serum dilution of 1:10. FRNT50 values of those individuals were arbitrarily set to 1. All experiments were performed with internal standard controls (pool of all tested sera), negative controls and virus-only controls to assess the nominal virus input for every single measurement.
Data analysis and statistics
Initial results collation and matching to metadata was done in Excel 2016 and R 4.1.0. Graphs and statistical calculations were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.0.2 for Windows (GraphPad Software). For analysis of neutralization assay results, a Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine normality. Focus Reduction Neutralization titre with a 50% neutralization cut-off (FRNT50) was calculated using a four-parameter regression analysis function. FRNT50 values from non-responders were set to 1.0 for graphical presentation only. A non-parametric Friedman’s test followed by Dunn’s multiple comparison analysis was used to compare neutralization results to different viruses in a pair-wise manner for matched samples. Two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to compare neutralization of longitudinal results. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Neutralization responses towards B.1, B.1.1.529, B.1.351, and B.1.617.2 Spike-expressing rhabdoviral pseudotypes were analysed in 82 serum samples from individuals vaccinated with either a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, homologous two-dose BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or AZD1222 vaccination, or heterologous AZD1222-BNT162b2 or AZD1222-mRNA-1273 vaccination at peak response, approximately four weeks after the last dose. The WHO international standard serum showed detectable neutralization against all variants including Omicron (Supplementary Table S3), showing excellent sensitivity of our assay, compared to previous studies [21]. Pre-pandemic control sera (n=4) showed no measurable neutralization levels (Supplementary Table S3). While neutralization potency towards Beta VoC pseudotypes were clearly reduced for all vaccination schemes, Omicron had the strongest effect across all samples tested (Fig. 1). Vaccination with vector-based Ad26.CoV2.S performed least well (Fig. 1a), with only 73% responders against the B.1 variant, 18% classified as responders for the Beta VoC and 9% for Omicron. Homologous vaccination with either AZD1222 or BNT162b2 performed better against Omicron, with 50% or 33% responders, respectively (Fig. 1b, 1c). Heterologous immunization with these two vaccines (AZD1222-BNT162b2) showed a response rate of 80% (Fig. 1d). Heterologous vaccination with AZD1222-mRNA-1273 had a similar response rate of 82% (Fig. 1e), but homologous immunization with mRNA-1273 had the highest Omicron response rate of 100% (Fig. 1f). Non-responders were defined as subjects with undetectable neutralization titers at an initial serum dilution of 1:10. Non-parametrical statistical comparisons showed a highly significant reduction in serum titres when Omicron neutralization was compared to B.1 for all vaccination schemes (Fig 1b-e).). There was no tendency of age, sex, or pre-existing medical conditions to modify the responder status against Omicron in our cohort (Supplementary Table S3). To assess the impact of immune escape with more detail, we focused on the responders and compared geometric means of their FRNT50 titres (GMT). Importantly, fold-changes for groups that included non-responders are not provided in Fig. 1, because this would lead to highly artificial results and possibly over-interpretation. We therefore present the percentage of responders as primary outcome and provide fold-changes of GMT where calculation is reasonable (100% responders in both arms). Furthermore, for each vaccination regimen, we defined the responder subgroups (excluding non-responders in either group) and compared the fold-reduction for titres that could be quantified (see Table 2). In these subsets, we observed an approximate 15-fold reduction in GMT for most vaccinations, except BNT162b2, where the reduction was 28-fold at peak responses. This was consistent with the high frequency of non-responders in this subset, additionally arguing for weaker protection against the Omicron variant in this cohort.
Vaccination-induced neutralization potency against Omicron (B.1.1.529), Beta (B. 1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2) or Wuhan (B.1) pseudotypes was measured in individuals who received a vector-based vaccination with single dose Ad26.CoV2.S (n=11, a), two doses of AZD1222 (n=14, b), two doses of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (n=15, c), a heterologous two-dose vaccination with AZD1222-BNT162b2 (n=15, d) or AZD1222-mRNA-1273 (n=11, e), or two doses of mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (n=16, f) 21 to 61 days after the last dose. FRNT50 data is expressed for each serum sample, bold horizontal lines and whiskers are geometric means with 95% CI. Interconnecting lines represent sample data from the same donor. Non-neutralizing sample values were arbitrarily set to 1 for presentation purposes, indicated by a dashed line. Fold change in neutralization potency between SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and VoC pseudotypes is shown below p-values. Percentage (%) responder rates and FRNT50 geometric mean titres (GMT) per SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype are shown above the individual measurements. Fold change in neutralization potency and GMTs for SARS-CoV-2 pseudotypes are only calculated for groups where all samples had a detectable neutralizing activity, or else non-applicable (na) is stated. Time between sampling and full vaccination in days is displayed as mean and SD below the vaccination scheme. Statistical analysis was performed by paired non-parametric Friedman’s test followed by a Dunn’s multiple comparison analysis. Statistical significance was defined by a value of *<0.05; ** <0.01; ***<0.001; ****<0.0001.
Since BNT162b2 is very commonly used, we tested the neutralization potency in BNT162b2 recipients at approximately six months post immunization as well. Similar to the peak responses, we observed a significantly weaker neutralization of the Omicron compared to the B.1 pseudotype and only 47% responders against the newly emerging VoC (Fig. 2a). Beta neutralization was slightly reduced, whereas Delta neutralization was at same levels as B.1 at the late time point (Fig. 2a). To understand the longitudinal dynamic of humoral immunity, we used paired sera from BNT162b2 vaccine recipients at four weeks (already shown in Fig. 1c) and at six months post second dose which allowed us to compare intra-individual titre changes over time (Fig. 2b-d). While the neutralization of B.1 (Fig. 2b) and of the Delta VoC (Fig. 2d) decreased significantly over time, the time dependent reduction was less pronounced for the Beta (Fig 2c) or the Omicron VoC (Fig. 2e). Moreover, all Omicron responders identified early after vaccination had still detectable neutralizing capacity at the late time points and two additional responders were identified in the late phase only (Fig. 2e). Therefore, the differences in neutralization titres between B.1 and Omicron responders were less pronounced at late time points than at peak response (Table 2).
Neutralization capacity towards SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529), Beta (B. 1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2) or Wuhan (B.1) pseudotypes was analysed approximately six months after a two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination (n=15, a). Neutralization kinetic of paired longitudinal samples towards SARS-CoV-2 B.1 (b), Beta (c), Delta (d) and Omicron (e) pseudotypes is shown between T1 (n=15; mean (SD) ΔT after last dose: 28.3 (4.3)) and T2 (n=15; mean (SD) ΔT after last dose: 173.6 (11.4)). Peak neutralization responses of BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals from Figure 1c are displayed for clarity and comparison (b-e). FRNT50 data is expressed for each serum sample, bold horizontal lines and whiskers are geometric means with 95% CI. Interconnecting lines represent sample data from the same donor (a-e). Non-neutralizing samples were arbitrarily set to 1 for presentation purposes, indicated by a dashed line. Fold change in neutralization potency between SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and VoC pseudotypes is shown below p-values. Percentage (%) responder rates and FRNT50 geometric mean titres (GMT) per SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype are shown above the individual measurements. Fold change in neutralization potency and GMTs for SARS-CoV-2 pseudotypes are only calculated for groups where all samples had a detectable neutralizing activity, or else non-applicable (na) is stated. Statistical analysis was performed by paired non-parametric Friedman’s test followed by a Dunn’s multiple comparison analysis (a) or a by two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Statistical significance was defined by a value of *<0.05; ** <0.01; ***<0.001; ****<0.0001.
In sum, homologous mRNA-1273 vaccination resulted in the highest responder rate, Ad26.CoV2.S in the lowest, and longitudinal follow-up showed that Omicron responses, while reduced, seem rather durable if present in the first place.
Discussion
We provide a comprehensive overview of neutralization responses from all currently approved COVID-19 vaccination schemes in the European Union and the UK not only towards the Omicron VoC, but also towards Beta and Delta VoC compared to the parental strain B.1. We expand on previous findings [11, 12] that neutralization towards Omicron is particular poor after vaccination with vector-based formulations even within the peak phase shortly after vaccination. Also consistent with other reports [13, 14], we observed a very low cross-neutralization in BNT162b2 recipients. While our BNT162b2 samples had rather low neutralization titres overall, there was no signal this was due to clear differences in group, age or comorbidities. Considering our relatively small sample size, it is however possible that this low overall response in the BNT162b2 group was a spurious observation. Nevertheless, the samples showing any cross-neutralizing responses early on remained responsive to Omicron six months later. Notably, all mRNA-1273 recipients and 80% of those receiving any heterologous vaccination showed a detectable neutralization against Omicron in our analysis. It is not clear, why these vaccination protocols were more efficient against the Omicron pseudotype than BNT162b2, but it is indicative that the baseline neutralization against the B.1 pseudotype was stronger in all of them in our sample cohorts.
The detectable responsiveness to the Omicron pseudotype in all mRNA-1273 recipients differed from previous reports where usually several samples showed no measurable neutralization against Omicron [12, 14, 22]. This might be due to sampling differences, a result of increased sensitivity in our assay, or both. We chose responder rates as primary outcome because this is a less biased expression than fold changes if titres from non-responsive individuals are calculated. For the same reason, we used a non-parametric assay to evaluate differences, allowing us to include samples that were below detection threshold, but obviously very low in titre. Fold changes were calculated separately on a subset of samples that showed detectable titres in all circumstances. We observed an approximately 15-fold reduction in most vaccination regimens except BNT162b2, adding evidence that Omicron cross-neutralization was impaired in this cohort. While sample numbers in our cohort are low, they are comparable to the majority of other studies to date and are well-matched on age and sex.
Following current recommendations, a booster vaccination is generally advised after six months. Considering our results, booster vaccination might already be advised at earlier stages, especially for risk groups in the absence of a precise and clinically relevant correlate of protection.
Overall, we provide further evidence that that amino acid mutations accumulated in the B.1.1.529 Spike protein serve to escape vaccine-induced protection. In the absence of conclusive data on infectivity and disease severity, development of adapted second generation vaccinations, booster doses and careful monitoring of future variants of concern appears warranted.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres through projects “Virological and immunological determinants of COVID-19 pathogenesis – lessons to get prepared for future pandemics (KA1-Co-02 “COVIPA”) to LCS and grant number SO-96 to GK, by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2155 “RESIST” – Project ID 39087428 to LCS, and intramural funds of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research. SP was supported by BMBF (01KI2006D, 01KI20328A, 01KX2021), the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony (14-76103-184, MWK HZI COVID-19) and the German Research Foundation (DFG; PO 716/11-1, PO 716/14-1).
Declaration of Interest
NSM was a speaker at Luminex user meetings in the past. The Natural and Medical Sciences Institute at the University of Tübingen is involved in applied research projects as a fee for services with the Luminex Corporation. The other authors declare no competing interest.
Author contribution
MS, HJ, LCS conceived the study. MS, GK, BL, SC, NSM, SP and LCS procured funding. GK, BL, MS, MaH and DG designed the population-based cohort this study is based on. HJ, MS and LCS designed the experiments. HJ, HM, MYD, UR, LA, YK and TL performed the experiments. MHa, BK, MS, JH, MYD and HM performed data analysis. MS, HJ, HM, MYD generated figures and tables. MS, BK, HJ, LCS verified the underlying data. MHo, SP provided reagents. AD, DJ, JH, MS, BK, PH, BL, SC, MHa, DG, SG, JKH, VM were involved in sample or data collection and project administration. MS, HJ, LCS wrote the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Data Sharing Statement
Raw data is provided with the manuscript. Additional data is available upon request from the corresponding authors.
Supplementary Material
Comorbidities of study participants (NA: not available; CVD: cardiovascular disease).
Amino acid mutations of Spike proteins used for SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype construction compared to the parental strain B.1. Shared mutations among the constructs are highlighted in bold.
Acknowledgments
We want to thank again all parties involved in any capacity in making MuSPAD happen. Most of all the study participants for their willingness and commitment to make this study possible and all colleagues at the HZI, the Hannover Unified Biobank and the DRK Institute of Transfusion Medicine and Immunohematology who contributed to project administration, organization and sample processing. We thank Daniela Lenz, Ayse Barut, Inge Hollatz-Rangosch and Fawad Khan for excellent technical assistance during this study.
References
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
1
Blogs/Media
Author Videos