Cited by 52SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchAnimal Virus Infections Studiesvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches

Reduced antibody cross-reactivity following infection with B.1.1.7 than with parental SARS-CoV-2 strains

Open access
Faulkner, Nikhil, Ng, Kevin W, Wu, Mary Y, Harvey, Ruth, Margaritis, Marios, Paraskevopoulou, Stavroula, Houlihan, Catherine, Hussain, Saira +21 more·2021·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The degree of heterotypic immunity induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains is a major determinant of the spread of emerging variants and the success of vaccination campaigns, but remains incompletely understood. Methods: We examined the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 (Alpha) that arose in the United Kingdom and spread globally. We determined titres of spike glycoprotein-binding antibodies and authentic virus neutralising antibodies induced by B.1.1.7 infection to infer homotypic and heterotypic immunity. Results: Antibodies elicited by B.1.1.7 infection exhibited significantly reduced recognition and neutralisation of parental strains or of the South Africa variant B.1.351 (Beta) than of the infecting variant. The drop in cross-reactivity was significantly more pronounced following B.1.1.7 than parental strain infection. Conclusions: The results indicate that heterotypic immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 variants is asymmetric. Funding: This work was supported by the Francis Crick Institute and the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Magdeburg.

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 · 10.7554/elife.69317

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Of 34 convalescent plasma samples from persons infected with the Alpha variant, 59% had 3-fold to 10-fold reduced neutralizing activity and 18% had >10-fold reduced neutralizing activity to the Beta variant.

    “Of 34 convalescent plasma samples from persons infected with the Alpha variant, 59% had 3-fold to 10-fold reduced neutralizing activity and 18% had >10-fold reduced neutralizing activity to the Beta variant 99,104,221 .”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faulkner, N., Ng, K. W., Wu, M. Y., Harvey, R., Margaritis, M., Paraskevopoulou, S., Houlihan, C., Hussain, S., Greco, M., Bolland, W., Warchal, S., Heaney, J., Rickman, H., Spyer, M., Frampton, D., Byott, M., de Oliveira, T., Sigal, A., Kjaer, S., Swanton, C., Gandhi, S., Beale, R., Gamblin, S. J., McCauley, J. W., Daniels, R. S., Howell, M., Bauer, D., Nastouli, E., & Kassiotis, G.
Affiliations
  • The Francis Crick Institute (GB)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics Unit UCLH NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • University College London (GB)
  • School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
  • Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology (DE)
  • Structural Biology STP, London, United Kingdom
Corresponding author
  • Nastouli, Eleni
  • Kassiotis, George
Venue
eLife
Published
2021-07-29
Volume
10
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3183485637
Cited by
52
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 23
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Francis Crick Institute
  • Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems Magdeburg
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7 Alpha variant, antibody cross-reactivity, heterotypic immunity, virus neutralising antibodies, natural infection, emerging variants, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Antibodies, Viral, Cross Reactions, United Kingdom, Humans, Parents, South Africa, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

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