Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33624859›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2021

Production of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 antigens: Impact of bioprocess and storage on glycosylation, biophysical attributes, and ELISA serologic tests performance.

Rute Castro, Lígia S Nobre, Rute P Eleutério, Mónica Thomaz, António Pires, Sandra M Monteiro, Sónia Mendes, Ricardo A Gomes, João J Clemente, Marcos F Q Sousa and 15 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rute CastroiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0899-0649
Lígia S NobreiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3060-2593
Rute P EleutérioiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1048-4411
Mónica ThomaziBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3133-0278
António PiresiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7713-6542
Sandra M MonteiroiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0345-8127
Sónia MendesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0568-204X
Ricardo A GomesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7155-0059
João J ClementeiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-4994
Marcos F Q SousaiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3766-3900
Filipe PintoiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3838-0948
Ana C SilvaiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3394-2793
Micael C FreitasiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7468-3471
Ana R LemosiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3987-4771
Onome AkpoghenetaIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5213-4903
Lindsay KosackIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7266-0006
Marie-Louise BergmanIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0691-4308
Nadia DuarteIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4477-4492
Paula MatosoIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2315-7460
Júlia CostaITQB NOVA, Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica António Xavier, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Av. da República, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7782-6319
Tiago M BandeirasiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6089-6089
Patricia Gomes-AlvesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7245-6785
Carlos P GonçalvesIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7225-1907
Jocelyne DemengeotIGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4761-614X
Paula M AlvesiBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1445-3556
Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica · PTInstituto Gulbenkian de Ciência · PTUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serological assays are valuable tools to study SARS-CoV-2 spread and, importantly, to identify individuals that were already infected and would be potentially immune to a virus reinfection. SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and its receptor binding domain (RBD) are the antigens with higher potential to develop SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. Moreover, structural studies of these antigens are key to understand the molecular basis for Spike interaction with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, hopefully enabling the development of COVID-19 therapeutics. Thus, it is urgent that significant amounts of this protein became available at the highest quality. In this study, we produced Spike and RBD in two human derived cell hosts: HEK293-E6 and Expi293F™. We evaluated the impact of different and scalable bioprocessing approaches on Spike and RBD production yields and, more importantly, on these antigens' quality attributes. Using negative and positive sera collected from human donors, we show an excellent performance of the produced antigens, assessed in serologic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests, as denoted by the high specificity and sensitivity of the test. We show robust Spike productions with final yields of approx. 2 mg/L of culture that were maintained independently of the production scale or cell culture strategy. To the best of our knowledge, the final yield of 90 mg/L of culture obtained for RBD production, was the highest reported to date. An in-depth characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and RBD proteins was performed, namely the antigen's oligomeric state, glycosylation profiles, and thermal stability during storage. The correlation of these quality attributes with ELISA performance show equivalent reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 positive serum, for all Spike and RBD produced, and for all storage conditions tested. Overall, we provide straightforward protocols to produce high-quality SARS-CoV-2 Spike and RBD antigens, that can be easily adapted to both academic and industrial settings; and integrate, for the first time, studies on the impact of bioprocess with an in-depth characterization of these proteins, correlating antigen's glycosylation and biophysical attributes to performance of COVID-19 serologic tests.

Indexed as

GlycosylationAntigens, ViralCold TemperatureEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFreezingHEK293 CellsHumansProtein ConformationProtein StabilityRecombinant ProteinsSARS-CoV-2Serologic TestsSpike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusAntigens, ViralRecombinant ProteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2bioprocessCOVID-19ELISAglycosylationproduction and purificationRBDSARS-CoV-2serologic assaySpikethermal stability during storage

Identifiers

PMID33624859
PMCPMC8014509
OpenAlexW3129481303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.