Identifying anti-spike antibodies that exhibit strong neutralizing activity against current dominant circulating variants and antibodies that are escaped by these variants have important implications in the development of therapeutic and diagnostic solutions as well as in improving understanding of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We characterized seven anti-RBD monoclonal antibodies for their binding activity, pairing capability and neutralization activity to SARS-CoV-2 and three variant RBDs (UK, SA and BR P.1) via lateral flow immunoassays. The results allowed us to group these antibodies into three distinct epitope bins. Our studies showed that two antibodies had broadly potent neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 and these variant RBDs and that one antibody did not neutralize the SA and BR P.1 RBDs. The antibody escaped by the SA and BR P.1 RBDs retained binding activity to SA and BR P.1 RBDs but was unable to induce neutralization. Further, we demonstrated that the lateral flow immunoassay can be a rapid and effective tool for antibody characterization, including epitope classification and antibody neutralization kinetics. From these studies, the potential contributions of the mutations (N501Y, E484K and K417N/T) contained in these variants’ RBDs on antibody pairing capability, neutralization activity and therapeutic antibody targeting strategy are discussed.

As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread among human populations, genetic changes occur and accumulate in the circulating virus. Some of these genetic changes have caused amino acid mutations, including deletions, which may have potential impact on critical SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures, including vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Considerable efforts have been made to categorize the amino acid mutations of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein along with certain mutations in other regions within the S protein as specific variants in an attempt to study the relationship between these mutations and the biological behavior of the virus. However, the currently used whole genome sequencing surveillance technologies can test only a small fraction of the positive specimens with high viral loads and often generate uncertainties in nucleic acid sequencing that needs additional verification for precision determination of mutations. This article introduces a generic protocol to routinely sequence a 437-bp nested RT-PCR cDNA amplicon of the ACE2 RBD and a 490-bp nested RT-PCR cDNA amplicon of the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the S gene for detection of the amino acid mutations needed for accurate determination of all variants of concern and variants of interest according to the definitions published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This protocol was able to amplify both nucleic acid targets into cDNA amplicons to be used as templates for Sanger sequencing on all 16 clinical specimens that were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

New insights into the causes and mechanisms of congenital heart disease (CHD) have been gained through the use of next-generation sequencing. Examination of the whole exome sequence detects detrimental gene variations modifying single or contiguous nucleotides, that are characterised as pathogenicity based on statistical assessments of families. and correlates with congenital heart disease, elevated expression during heart development, and reduction of harmful protein-coding mutations in the general population. Patients with CHD and extracardiac abnormalities enriched for gene classes meeting these criteria. CHDs and extracardiac defects, supporting a common set of pathways in the organogenesis of CHDs. Single-cell transcriptomics data reveal the expression of genes associated with CHD in specific cell lineages, and emerging evidence suggests that genetic variants disrupt multicellular genes essential for cardiogenesis. Metrics and units are being tracked in whole genome sequence studies.

The SARS-CoV-2-induced acute COVID-19 pandemic disorder seems to have begun all of the sudden in 2020, with very little data available regarding prior times in which people experienced mysterious flu-like illness symptoms characteristic of the pandemic disease. The scientific community seems to be divided into a few parts with regards to the belief of the kind of viral origins. A significant number of scientists believe that the virus solely has natural origins and that it underwent a thorough process of zoonosis, independent of laboratory research-based research that would only catalyse zoonosis due to helping the virus gain additional function of transmission and virulence. Many other scientists believe that the virus has wide origins characteristic of “gain-of-function” laboratory research, whilst many other scientists believe that most of the viral genome has natural origins, with the zoonotic process having been artificially catalysed only in its latter part of transmission to humans. Considerable extent of scientific evidence suggests that the virus underwent a restricted, but considerable extent of “gain-of-function” research, prior to having been accidentally leaked into the nearby environment, whilst its process of zoonotic spillover into humans was influenced by such events, given for example the multidimensional pathogenetic process displayed by the virus and its main antigen of action, the spike glycoprotein, causing all kinds of immune pathophysiology - including transient immunosuppression. Investigations into the origins of the novel coronavirus have been lasting for years, seemingly with no concrete end in sight, and the available molecular testing methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection displaying less than perfect results have not significantly helped the process. Evidence even started pointing toward the existence of artificial, laboratory research-based viral origins, exposing a probable accidentally-induced artificial process of “accelerated viral evolution”, which could be particularly dangerous because of the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenic agent. Likewise, it is possible that the prevention of distribution of scientific data regarding scenarios as such in fact constitutes censorship, rather than regulation of data that may be considered not to be significantly evidence based. Simultaneously, it is important not to regard all hypotheses and preliminary reports of scientific research as evidence-based, but to ensure that due diligence is performed in all cases. The integrity of scientific research and ultimately of the innovation process of medical solutions depends on the integrity of democracy and the rule of law, as well as on regulating partnerships with scientific companies from world nations where autocracy rules their society.