4.7 Article

Tetravalent SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies Show Enhanced Potency and Resistance to Escape Mutations

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 433, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2021.167177

关键词

anti-viral; tetravalent; synthetic; neutralizing; RBD-binding

资金

  1. NIH [R01 AI157155, P01AI120943, R01AI123926, R01AI107056]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency [HR001117S0019]
  3. CIHR operating grant (COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding) [OV3170649]
  4. Lazio Region (Italy) [653 29]
  5. Rome Foundation (Italy) [317A/I]
  6. FAST [2161, 2189]
  7. Emergent Ventures through the Thistledown Foundation (Canada)
  8. Mercatus Center at George Mason University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bivalent and tetravalent nAbs have shown to be more effective in combating COVID-19 variants, with similar stability and specificity to approved antibody drugs.
Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) hold promise as therapeutics against COVID-19. Here, we describe protein engineering and modular design principles that have led to the development of synthetic bivalent and tetravalent nAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The best nAb targets the host receptor binding site of the viral S-protein and tetravalent versions block entry with a potency exceeding bivalent nAbs by an order of magnitude. Structural studies show that both the bivalent and tetravalent nAbs can make multivalent interactions with a single S-protein trimer, consistent with the avidity and potency of these molecules. Significantly, we show that the tetravalent nAbs show increased tolerance to potential virus escape mutants and an emerging variant of concern. Bivalent and tetravalent nAbs can be produced at largescale and are as stable and specific as approved antibody drugs. Our results provide a general framework for enhancing antiviral therapies against COVID-19 and related viral threats, and our strategy can be applied to virtually any antibody drug. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据