4.8 Article

SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617 is resistant to bamlanivimab and evades antibodies induced by infection and vaccination

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109415

关键词

-

资金

  1. BMBF [01KI2006D, 01KI20328A, 01KI20396, 01KX2021, 01KI2074A, 01KI2043]
  2. Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony [14-76103-184]
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG) [PO 716/11-1, PO 716/14-1]
  4. Sartorius
  5. Bavarian State ministry for Science and the Arts by B COVIM (NaFoUniMedCovid19) [FKZ: 01KX2021]
  6. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [RTG1660, TRR130]
  7. Sartorius for lung research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of the B.1.617 variant in India may be responsible for the sharp increase in COVID-19 cases and deaths. B.1.617 shows increased efficiency in entering cells and evades antibody responses, contributing to its rapid spread.
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants threatens efforts to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in India has risen steeply, and a SARS-CoV-2 variant, B.1.617, is believed to be responsible for many of these cases. The spike protein of B.1.617 harbors two mutations in the receptor binding domain, which interacts with the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor and constitutes the main target of neutralizing antibodies. Therefore, we analyze whether B.1.617 is more adept in entering cells and/or evades antibody responses. B.1.617 enters two of eight cell lines tested with roughly 50% increased efficiency and is equally inhibited by two entry inhibitors. In contrast, B.1.617 is resistant against bamlanivimab, an antibody used for COVID-19 treatment. B.1.617 evades antibodies induced by infection or vaccination, although less so than the B.1.351 variant. Collectively, our study reveals that antibody evasion of B.1.617 may contribute to the rapid spread of this variant.

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

4.8
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