CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 440SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchAnimal Virus Infections StudiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Primary exposure to SARS-CoV-2 protects against reinfection in rhesus macaques

Open access
Deng, Wei, Bao, Linlin, Liu, Jiangning, Xiao, Chong, Liu, Jiayi, Xue, Jing, Lv, Qi, Qi, Feifei, Gao, Hong, Yu, Pin, Xu, Yanfeng, Qu, Yajin, Li, Fengdi, Xiang, Zhiguang, Yu, Haisheng, Gong, Shuran, Liu, Mingya, Wang, Guanpeng, Wang, Shunyi, Song, Zhiqi, Liu, Ying, Zhao, Wenjie, Han, Yunlin, Zhao, Linna, Liu, Xing, Wei, Qiang, Qin, Chuan·2020·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.abc5343PMC PMC7402625
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Immunity from reinfection: One of the many open questions about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is whether an individual who has cleared the virus can be infected a second time and get sick. Chandrashekar et al. and Deng et al. generated rhesus macaque models of SARS-CoV-2 infection and tested whether natural SARS-CoV-2 infection could result in immunity to viral rechallenge. They found that animals indeed developed immune responses that protected against a second infection. Although there are differences between SARS-CoV-2 infection in macaques and in humans, these findings have key implications for public health and economic initiatives if validated in human studies. Science , this issue p. 812 , p. 818

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.abc5343

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Experimental design and sample collection. Seven adult Chinese-origin rhesus macaques (M0 to M6) were enrolled in the current study. At the outset of this experiment, six monkeys (M1 to M6) were challenged intratracheally with SARS-CoV-2 at 1 × 106 TCID50. After all the experimentally-infected monkeys had recovered from the primary infection, four infected monkeys (M3 to M6) were intratracheally rechallenged at 28 days post initial challenge (dpi) with the same dose of the SARS-CoV-2 strain, to ascertain the possibility of reinfection. In addition, an uninfected monkey (M0) was also treated with SARS-CoV-2 as the model control of the second challenge, and a previously infected monkey (M2) was untreated in the rechallenge experiment and was continuously monitored as the control animal. To compare the virus distribution and histopathological changes between the initially infected monkeys and the reinfected monkeys, two monkeys per group (M0 and M1 in the initial infection group, M3 and M5 in the reinfection group) were euthanized and necropsied at 5 dpi (M0), 7 dpi (M1) and 5 days post rechallenge (dpr) (M3 and M5), respectively. Body weight, body temperature, nasal/throat/anal swabs, hematological changes, immunocytes, and specific antibodies were measured over the short-term observation period. Two measurements of virus distribution and histopathology (H&E/IHC staining) were carried out at 5 dpi (M0), 7 dpi (M1), and 5 dpr (M3 and M5). Chest X-ray and neutralizing antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 were examined at the indicated time points.
Fig. 1 Experimental design and sample collection. Seven adult Chinese-origin rhesus macaques (M0 to M6) were enrolled in the current study. At the outset of this experiment, six monkeys (M1 to M6) were challenged intratracheally with SARS-CoV-2 at 1 × 106 TCID50. After all the experimentally-infected monkeys had recovered from the primary infection, four infected monkeys (M3 to M6) were intratracheally rechallenged at 28 days post initial challenge (dpi) with the same dose of the SARS-CoV-2 strain, to ascertain the possibility of reinfection. In addition, an uninfected monkey (M0) was also treated with SARS-CoV-2 as the model control of the second challenge, and a previously infected monkey (M2) was untreated in the rechallenge experiment and was continuously monitored as the control animal. To compare the virus distribution and histopathological changes between the initially infected monkeys and the reinfected monkeys, two monkeys per group (M0 and M1 in the initial infection group, M3 and M5 in the reinfection group) were euthanized and necropsied at 5 dpi (M0), 7 dpi (M1) and 5 days post rechallenge (dpr) (M3 and M5), respectively. Body weight, body temperature, nasal/throat/anal swabs, hematological changes, immunocytes, and specific antibodies were measured over the short-term observation period. Two measurements of virus distribution and histopathology (H&E/IHC staining) were carried out at 5 dpi (M0), 7 dpi (M1), and 5 dpr (M3 and M5). Chest X-ray and neutralizing antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 were examined at the indicated time points.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Longitudinal tracking of clinical signs, viral replication, hematological changes, and radiological changes. (A and B) Clinical signs in each monkey. Monkeys were examined daily for changes in body weight and rectal temperature over the observation period after the initial infection, followed by virus rechallenge. The changes in weight are expressed as body weight loss prior to primary infection. (C, D, and E) Detection of viral RNA in nasal, throat, and anal swabs. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by qRT–PCR in the swabs from seven monkeys at the indicated time points. (F) Hematological changes, including WBC, LYMP, and NEUT counts in the peripheral blood, were monitored. (G) Chest X-rays of animals at 0, 7, 28, and 33 dpi (5 dpr) were examined and the representative images of M4 and M6 are shown (red circles, areas of interstitial infiltration and exudative lesion; red arrows, obscured diaphragmatic surface; blue circles and arrows, areas that have recovered from pneumonia). Four monkeys (M3 to M6) were rechallenged at 28 dpi (dotted line and shaded areas), and the results of the initial infection and rechallenge were compared in bar graphs. The bars represent the average of four rechallenged animals at the indicated time points. The viral RNA in nasal, throat, and anal swabs of rechallenged animals were significantly lower than those of the initial infection, while significant hematological changes were observed between the primary and second challenges (unpaired t-test, dpi vs. dpr, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; #P < 0.05 0 dpi vs. 7 dpi).
Fig. 2 Longitudinal tracking of clinical signs, viral replication, hematological changes, and radiological changes. (A and B) Clinical signs in each monkey. Monkeys were examined daily for changes in body weight and rectal temperature over the observation period after the initial infection, followed by virus rechallenge. The changes in weight are expressed as body weight loss prior to primary infection. (C, D, and E) Detection of viral RNA in nasal, throat, and anal swabs. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by qRT–PCR in the swabs from seven monkeys at the indicated time points. (F) Hematological changes, including WBC, LYMP, and NEUT counts in the peripheral blood, were monitored. (G) Chest X-rays of animals at 0, 7, 28, and 33 dpi (5 dpr) were examined and the representative images of M4 and M6 are shown (red circles, areas of interstitial infiltration and exudative lesion; red arrows, obscured diaphragmatic surface; blue circles and arrows, areas that have recovered from pneumonia). Four monkeys (M3 to M6) were rechallenged at 28 dpi (dotted line and shaded areas), and the results of the initial infection and rechallenge were compared in bar graphs. The bars represent the average of four rechallenged animals at the indicated time points. The viral RNA in nasal, throat, and anal swabs of rechallenged animals were significantly lower than those of the initial infection, while significant hematological changes were observed between the primary and second challenges (unpaired t-test, dpi vs. dpr, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; #P < 0.05 0 dpi vs. 7 dpi).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Comparison of virus distribution and pathological changes between the primary challenge and rechallenge stages. (A) Detection of viral RNA in the indicated organs (brain, eye, nose, pharynx, lung, and gut. Compared with M0 and M1 (at 5 or 7 dpi; primary infection stage), viral replication tested negative in the indicated tissues from M3 and M5 (at 5 dpr; virus rechallenge stage). Using a viral load > 10 log10 copies/mL as the threshold of positivity-tissue-based PCR, tissues from 49 anatomical parts were detected for qualifying virus-infected positivity. Fourteen tissues from the respiratory tract, gut, and heart exhibited SARS-CoV-2-positive cells in both M0 and M1. SARS-CoV-2-positive cells were only observed in the left lower lung from M0 or in the right upper lung, upper accessory lung, skeletal muscle, duodenum, and bladder from M1. The remaining tissues from 29 anatomical parts did not show SARS-CoV-2-positive cells, indicating that these tissues were intact from viral invasion. (B) In M0 (5 dpi), an interstitial lesion including remarkedly widened alveolar septa and massive infiltrated inflammatory cells was observed using H&E staining. A mild fibrosis was clearly detected within widened alveolar septa using Masson staining. IHC against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (7D2, grey frame), macrophages (CD68, blue frame), or alveolar epithelial cells (CK7, green frame) are visualized in parallel in Fig. 3C. The spike-positive cells overlapped with either alveolar epithelial cells or macrophages showing diffused interstitial pneumonia affected by SARS-CoV-2 invasion. In M5 (5 dpr), no remarked pathological changes and virus distribution were detected via H&E staining, Masson staining, or IHC, indicating that the interstitial lesions had completely recovered from the SARS-CoV-2 primary infection and were intact to reinfection. The red rectangles indicate the areas of magnification. Black scale bar at 100× or 200× = 100 μm. Black scale bar at 400× = 50 μm. Data are representative of three independent experiments.
Fig. 3 Comparison of virus distribution and pathological changes between the primary challenge and rechallenge stages. (A) Detection of viral RNA in the indicated organs (brain, eye, nose, pharynx, lung, and gut. Compared with M0 and M1 (at 5 or 7 dpi; primary infection stage), viral replication tested negative in the indicated tissues from M3 and M5 (at 5 dpr; virus rechallenge stage). Using a viral load > 10 log10 copies/mL as the threshold of positivity-tissue-based PCR, tissues from 49 anatomical parts were detected for qualifying virus-infected positivity. Fourteen tissues from the respiratory tract, gut, and heart exhibited SARS-CoV-2-positive cells in both M0 and M1. SARS-CoV-2-positive cells were only observed in the left lower lung from M0 or in the right upper lung, upper accessory lung, skeletal muscle, duodenum, and bladder from M1. The remaining tissues from 29 anatomical parts did not show SARS-CoV-2-positive cells, indicating that these tissues were intact from viral invasion. (B) In M0 (5 dpi), an interstitial lesion including remarkedly widened alveolar septa and massive infiltrated inflammatory cells was observed using H&E staining. A mild fibrosis was clearly detected within widened alveolar septa using Masson staining. IHC against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (7D2, grey frame), macrophages (CD68, blue frame), or alveolar epithelial cells (CK7, green frame) are visualized in parallel in Fig. 3C. The spike-positive cells overlapped with either alveolar epithelial cells or macrophages showing diffused interstitial pneumonia affected by SARS-CoV-2 invasion. In M5 (5 dpr), no remarked pathological changes and virus distribution were detected via H&E staining, Masson staining, or IHC, indicating that the interstitial lesions had completely recovered from the SARS-CoV-2 primary infection and were intact to reinfection. The red rectangles indicate the areas of magnification. Black scale bar at 100× or 200× = 100 μm. Black scale bar at 400× = 50 μm. Data are representative of three independent experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Comparison of cellular and humoral immunity between primary challenge and rechallenge stages in macaques. Four macaques (M3–M6) were rechallenged at 28 dpi (dotted line and shaded areas), and the results of the initial infection and rechallenge were compared at the same time points after the challenge and after the rechallenge. (A) Percentages of memory CD4+/CD8+ T cell subsets, memory B cells, plasma cells, or activated CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood for the challenge–rechallenge experiments. Compared with 0, 5 or 14 dpi, there was no significant differences on the percentage of naive CD4+/CD8+ T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tnaïve, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7+ CD45RA+), central memory CD4+/CD8+ T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tcm, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7+ CD45RA−), effective memory T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tem, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7- CD45RA−), memory B cells (CD3− CD20+ CD27+) and plasma cells (CD3− CD20+ CD43+) from peripheral blood at 0, 5, 14 dpr (unpaired t-test, ns, P > 0.05). The activation of CD8+ T cells (CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ or CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ PD-1+) at 14 dpi were increased compared with the baseline (unpaired t-test, #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01), and elevated levels of CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ T cells were also observed at 28 dpi (unpaired t-test, 0 dpi vs 0 dpr, * P < 0.05). (B) Percentages of memory CD4+/CD8+ T cell subsets, memory B cells, plasma cells or activated CD8+ T cells from lymph nodes between 5 dpi and 5 dpr. An increased percentage of CD4+ Tcm cells and decreased percentage of CD4+ Tnaïve cells and memory B cells from lymph nodes were found in the dot plots (unpaired t-test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01). (C) Levels of specific IgG against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in four rechallenged monkeys. The levels of anti-viral antigen-specific IgG from each monkey were detected at 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 33, and 42 dpi. Significantly increased levels of IgG were observed between the primary and second challenges (unpaired t-test, **P < 0.01, 14 dpi vs. 14 dpr; # P < 0.05, 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, 28 dpi vs. 42 dpi). (D) Neutralizing antibody titers for protection of SARS-CoV-2-infected monkeys against reinfection.
Fig. 4 Comparison of cellular and humoral immunity between primary challenge and rechallenge stages in macaques. Four macaques (M3–M6) were rechallenged at 28 dpi (dotted line and shaded areas), and the results of the initial infection and rechallenge were compared at the same time points after the challenge and after the rechallenge. (A) Percentages of memory CD4+/CD8+ T cell subsets, memory B cells, plasma cells, or activated CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood for the challenge–rechallenge experiments. Compared with 0, 5 or 14 dpi, there was no significant differences on the percentage of naive CD4+/CD8+ T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tnaïve, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7+ CD45RA+), central memory CD4+/CD8+ T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tcm, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7+ CD45RA−), effective memory T cells (CD4+/CD8+ Tem, CD3+ CD4+/CD8+ CCR7- CD45RA−), memory B cells (CD3− CD20+ CD27+) and plasma cells (CD3− CD20+ CD43+) from peripheral blood at 0, 5, 14 dpr (unpaired t-test, ns, P > 0.05). The activation of CD8+ T cells (CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ or CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ PD-1+) at 14 dpi were increased compared with the baseline (unpaired t-test, #P < 0.05, ##P < 0.01), and elevated levels of CD8+ CD38+ HLA-DR+ T cells were also observed at 28 dpi (unpaired t-test, 0 dpi vs 0 dpr, * P < 0.05). (B) Percentages of memory CD4+/CD8+ T cell subsets, memory B cells, plasma cells or activated CD8+ T cells from lymph nodes between 5 dpi and 5 dpr. An increased percentage of CD4+ Tcm cells and decreased percentage of CD4+ Tnaïve cells and memory B cells from lymph nodes were found in the dot plots (unpaired t-test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01). (C) Levels of specific IgG against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in four rechallenged monkeys. The levels of anti-viral antigen-specific IgG from each monkey were detected at 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 33, and 42 dpi. Significantly increased levels of IgG were observed between the primary and second challenges (unpaired t-test, **P < 0.01, 14 dpi vs. 14 dpr; # P < 0.05, 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, 28 dpi vs. 42 dpi). (D) Neutralizing antibody titers for protection of SARS-CoV-2-infected monkeys against reinfection.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Deng, W., Bao, L., Liu, J., Xiao, C., Liu, J., Xue, J., Lv, Q., Qi, F., Gao, H., Yu, P., Xu, Y., Qu, Y., Li, F., Xiang, Z., Yu, H., Gong, S., Liu, M., Wang, G., Wang, S., Song, Z., Liu, Y., Zhao, W., Han, Y., Zhao, L., Liu, X., Wei, Q., & Qin, C.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Beijing Key Laboratory for Animal Models of Emerging and Remerging Infectious Diseases, NHC Key Laboratory of Human Disease Comparative Medicine, Institute of Laboratory Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Comparative Medicine Center, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Corresponding author
  • Deng, Wei
  • Bao, Linlin
  • Liu, Jiangning
  • Xiao, Chong
  • Liu, Jiayi
  • Xue, Jing
  • Lv, Qi
  • Qin, Chuan
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2020-08-14
Volume
369
Issue
6505
Pages
818-823
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.abc5343
PMC
PMC7402625
OpenAlex
W3038698073
Cited by
440
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 176 · 2020: 104
FWCI
13.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National key research and development project of China (2016YFD0500304)
  • National Mega projects of China for Major Infectious Diseases (2017ZX10304402)
  • CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine of China (2016-I2M-2-006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, reinfection, rhesus monkeys, primary infection, drug rechallenge, neutralizing antibodies, humoral immunity, cell-mediated immunity, interstitial lung disease, viral dissemination, convalescence
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, Host Microbial Interactions, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Animals, Antibodies, Viral, Anal Canal, Disease Models, Animal, Immunity, Cellular, Lung, Macaca mulatta, Nasopharynx, Pneumonia, Viral, Recurrence, Virus Replication, B-Lymphocyte Subsets, T-Lymphocyte Subsets, Lung Diseases, Interstitial, Coronavirus Infections, Viral Load, Immunity, Humoral, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review