Back

Comparative Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenicity across Assays and in Human and Animal Model Sera

Mühlemann, B.; Wilks, S. H.; Baracco, L.; Bekliz, M.; Carreno, J. M.; Corman, V. M.; Davis-Gardner, M. E.; Dejnirattisai, W.; Diamond, M.; Doueck, D.; Drosten, C.; Eckerle, I.; Edara, V. V.; Ellis, M.; Fouchier, R. A.; Frieman, M.; Godbole, S.; Haagmans, B.; Halfmann, P.; Henry, A. R.; Jones, T. C.; Katzelnick, L.; Kawaoka, Y.; Kimpel, J.; Krammer, F.; Lai, L.; Liu, C.; Lusvarghi, S.; Meyer, B.; Mongkolsapaya, J.; Montefiori, D.; Mykytyn, A. Z.; Netzl, A.; Pollett, S.; Rössler, A.; Screaton, G.; Shen, X.; Sigal, A.; Simon, V.; Subramanian, R.; Supasa, P.; Suthar, M.; Tureli, S.; Wang, W.; We

2023-09-27 bioinformatics
10.1101/2023.09.27.559689 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The antigenic evolution of SARS-CoV-2 requires ongoing monitoring to judge the immune escape of newly arising variants. A surveillance system necessitates an understanding of differences in neutralization titers measured in different assays and using human and animal sera. We compared 18 datasets generated using human, hamster, and mouse sera, and six different neutralization assays. Titer magnitude was lowest in human, intermediate in hamster, and highest in mouse sera. Fold change, immunodominance patterns and antigenic maps were similar among sera. Most assays yielded similar results, except for differences in fold change in cytopathic effect assays. Not enough data was available for conclusively judging mouse sera, but hamster sera were a consistent surrogate for human first-infection sera.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.