Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 13;15(8):e0236704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236704

A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants

Gi Uk Jeong 1, Byung-Yoon Ahn 1,*, Jaesung Jung 2, Hyunjin Kim 2, Tae-Hee Kim 2, Woohyun Kim 2, Ara Lee 2, Kyuhyun Lee 3, Jung-Hwan Kim 2,*
Editor: Yury E Khudyakov4
PMCID: PMC7425877  PMID: 32790777

Abstract

The hepatitis B virus (HBV) envelope is composed of a lipid bilayer and three glycoproteins, referred to as the large (L), middle (M), and small (S) hepatitis B virus surface antigens (HBsAg). S protein constitutes the major portion of the viral envelope and an even greater proportion of subviral particles (SVP) that circulate in the blood. Recombinant S proteins are currently used as a preventive vaccine, while plasma fractions isolated from vaccinated people, referred to as hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG), are used for short-term prophylaxis. Here, we characterized a recombinant human IgG1 type anti-S antibody named Lenvervimab regarding its binding property to a variety of cloned S antigens. Immunochemical data showed an overall consistent avidity of the antibody to S antigens of most viral genotypes distributed worldwide. Further, antibody binding was not affected by the mutations in the antigenic ‘a’ determinant found in many clinical variants, including the immune escape mutant G145R. In addition, mutations in the S gene sequence that confer drug resistance to the viral polymerase did not interfere with the antibody binding. These results support for a preventive use of the antibody against HBV infection.

Introduction

More than 250 million people worldwide carry hepatitis B virus (HBV) in a chronic state, which may develop into serious liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and liver cancer [1]. S protein, the smallest (226 amino acids) but most abundant of the three viral surface antigens (HBsAg), constitutes a major portion of virion particles and an even greater portion of subviral particles (SVP) in spherical and tubular forms, often in 100,000-fold excess amount as that of virion particles in the blood of infected individuals (Reviewed in [2]). Currently, vaccines made of S protein are used for preventive purposes (Reviewed in [3]), while the human plasma antibody fraction, called hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG), is used for short-term prophylaxis for newborns of chronic carrier parents and for immunosuppressed patients [4]. Regarding cost and safety issues, however, a recombinant anti-S antibody could be a good alternative/substitute for HBIG [5].

Lenvervimab is a human IgG1-type recombinant monoclonal anti-S antibody produced from CHO cells stably transfected with a cloned human immunoglobulin gene [6]. The HBV neutralizing activity of Lenvervimab was previously addressed utilizing a chimpanzee animal model [7]. In the current work, to address its preventive utility against HBV infection we characterized the antigen binding property of Lenvervimab to S antigens of various genotypes and clinical variants. Our results indicate that the antibody binds with an overall consistent avidity to S antigens from most viral genotypes distributed worldwide and most clinical variants with mutations in the ‘a’ determinant of S antigens, a dominant antigenic region conserved in all HBV strains. Further, antibody binding was not grossly affected by mutations in the S gene region that overlap with drug resistance mutations found in the viral polymerase. These results support the potential utility of Lenvervimab as a preventive measure against HBV infection.

Results

Lenvervimab neutralizes HBV infectivity in culture

The HBV neutralizing activity of Lenvervimab had previously been demonstrated in a chimpanzee animal model [7]. In the current study, HBV neutralization was examined in cell culture. Human hepatoma HepG2 cells that stably express the cellular receptor protein for HBV sodium taurocholate cotransporter protein (NTCP) were infected with HBV (Genotype D, ayw) in the presence of 0.001~1 microgram/ml Lenvervimab. Viral expression of the surface antigen HBsAg and the core protein HBcAg was inhibited by ~70% at 1 microgram/ml of Lenvervimab or equivalent concentration of a commercial rabbit polyclonal anti-HBsAg antibody, indicating a partial neutralization (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Lenvervimab neutralizes HBV infection in culture.

Fig 1

(Upper) HepG2-NTCP cells were infected for 16 h with HBV at 500 Geq/cell in the presence of 0.001~1 microgram/ml of Lenvervimab (shown on the left) or a commercial rabbit polyclonal anti-HBsAg antibody (from Novus Biologicals) (shown on the right). HBsAg secreted into the culture media was measured after 5 days by ELISA. Bars indicate the average value and standard errors of triplicate experiments. P-values were obtained by utilizing the Excel software based on the two-tailed Student’s t-test. P-values indicated are less than 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), 0.001 (***) and 0.0001 (****), respectively. (Lower) Intracellular viral core protein (HBcAg) after 5 days was examined by immunoblotting with an anti-HBcAg antibody. Values shown below the blot are the intensity of HBcAg scanned by Image J software (NIH) and normalized with that of the loading control Hsp70.

Lenvervimab binds only nondenatured forms of HBsAg

Earlier studies have investigated the specificity and avidity of anti-HBsAg antibodies to a variety of HBsAg expressed from cloned genes. Differences in the expression and antibody binding affinity of each clones, however, made it difficult to compare the quantity and binding affinity of individual clones by immunochemical methods [8, 9]. For a more reliable quantification of the antigens, we tagged a hemagglutinin (HA) epitope to the N-terminus of all S clones. Before examining a variety of S clones, we evaluated the strategy for detection of wild-type S proteins. In the first set of blots, an aliquot of culture supernatant was directly resolved in an agarose gel in nondenaturing conditions, following the protocol initially developed for virion particle gel assay [10]. Probing the capillary-transferred membrane with Lenvervimab revealed a broad band that migrated slightly faster than an equivalent sample from HBV1.3-transfected cells (Fig 2). A similar S band was detected by anti-HA antibody from an independent gel. In contrast, no signal was detected from a denaturing polyacrylamide gel blot by Lenvervimab, whereas anti-HA antibody detected a protein of 24 kDa and another one, which is slightly larger in size probably due to glycosylation. These results indicate that Lenvervimab binding requires an exclusively nondenaturing condition, whereas anti-HA antibody binds the HA-tagged S protein in both conditions. It is also evident that HA-tagged S protein is expressed in particle forms, much like the subviral particles (SVP) produced from HBV DNA-transfected cells as reported [11]. Although a fully enveloped virion could have also been produced from the replication competent HBV1.3 DNA, we could not separate or distinguish the two fractions in this experiment. Earlier studies showed that SVP in blood circulation is composed of some lipids and ~100 molecules of HBsAg, the majority of which are composed of S proteins [12, 13]. The quantity of S antigen produced in our transfection analysis ranged within ~100 ng/ml of culture supernatant.

Fig 2. Lenvervimab binds HBsAg only in nondenaturing conditions.

Fig 2

Aliquots of culture media from Huh7 cells transfected with pHM6-HA-HBs or HBV1.3 were separated on a 1% agarose gel in nondenaturing condition (Two panels shown on the left) or a 15% polyacrylamide gel in denaturing condition (shown on the right). Protein samples transferred to PVDF membrane were probed with Lenvervimab or anti-HA antibody, respectively.

Lenvervimab binds to the S antigens of all viral genotypes

HBV distributed worldwide is classified into eight distinct (Genotypes A to H) and two tentative (Genotypes I and J) groups based on their genome sequence differences [14]. Some genotypes are found to be associated with geographic prevalence and clinical features of disease [15]. Although S gene sequence variations are also found between different genotypes, their contribution to viral replication or disease has not been thoroughly investigated. To examine whether these genotypic variations affect their affinity to antibody, we constructed 23 S clones that belong to all 10 genotypes (Table 1). (Aligned amino acid sequences are in the Supporting Information). Aliquots of transfected cell supernatant were resolved on a nondenaturing agarose gel, capillary-transferred to nitrocellulose membranes and probed with Lenvervimab. All 23 clones tested were recognized by Lenvervimab, but their signal intensity varied from 5 (Genotype F) to 147% (Genotype C) that of a genotype D clone, referred to here as the wild-type (WT) (Fig 3A). Probing the same volume of sample with anti-HA antibody or another polyclonal anti-HBsAg antibody revealed overall similar band intensity pattern to that of Lenvervimab. Specific antibody signals of each clones, after normalization with anti-HA signals, indicated that despite being a singly cloned antibody, Lenvervimab has an overall avidity comparable with a polyclonal antibody to S antigens of all genotypes distributed worldwide (Fig 3B).

Table 1. S gene clones of HBV genotypes investigated in this study.

Clone name Genotype Serotype Gene accession
A1 A type adw AY738142
A2 A type adw DQ412135
B1 B type adw DQ141618
B2 B type adw GU815717
C1 C type adr V00867
C2 C type adr EU410082
D1 D type ayw JN257193
D2 D type ayw AY233280
E1 E type ayw AB091259
E2 E type ayw FJ692527
F1 F type adw FN547205
F2 F type adw KJ958446
F3 F type adw HM348689
G1 G type adw KC774445
G2 G type adw HE652720
H1 H type adw JQ514480
H2 H type adw DQ020003
H3 H type adw FR821991
I1 I type ayw FJ023664
I2 I type adw FJ023660
J1 J type ayw AB486012
ayr1 C type ayr JN980286
WT D type ayw V01460

Fig 3. Lenvervimab binds the S antigens of all viral genotypes.

Fig 3

(A) Aliquots of culture supernatant from transfection of various genotype S clones pHM6-HA-HBs were separated by nondenaturing agarose gels, capillary-transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane and probed with either Lenvervimab (upper), anti-HA (middle) or Dako’s polyclonal anti-HBsAg (lower) antibodies. HBV1.3 was included as a control. Indicated below the image is the quantified signal intensity of each clone relative to that of a genotype D clone (ayw), referred here as wild type (WT). The image is a representative of two independent experiments. (B) Indicated as bars are signals of the Lenvervimab (in dark) and the Dako’s anti-HBsAg antibody (in yellow) after normalization with anti-HA antibody signal. Average and standard errors of duplicate immunoblot analyses are shown.

Lenvervimab binds to S antigens of a variety of clinical mutants

Conserved in all HBV strains, a dominant antigenic determinant named ‘a’ is in the hydrophilic and cysteine-rich loop region (aa 117–149) of S antigen (Fig 4). Exposed on the surface of HBV particles, this region contains B cell epitopes critically recognized by convalescent and vaccine-induced immunity [16, 17]. Immunological pressure gives rise to the emergence of variants with mutations within the ‘a’ determinant, which can result in the failure of viral neutralization and escape from detection by diagnostic reagents [18]. Several mutations in this region have been found. The most common and stable one is G145R, the postvaccination immune escape mutant first found in a child born from a carrier mother [19]. This mutation was shown to abolish anti-HBsAg antibody binding to ‘a’ determinant [20]. To examine whether Lenvervimab binding is affected by such a mutation, we constructed 30 clones that mimic clinical variants, each harboring a single amino acid substitution at 16 sites that span the entire ‘a’ determinant (Table 2). HA-tagged S protein produced from each S gene clone was resolved on a nondenaturing agarose gel and immunoblotted with antibodies as described above. Unlike the genotype clones, a single amino acid change in this domain resulted in a notable mobility shift, most likely because of the net charge change at the particle surface. Lenvervimab binding intensity varied from near zero to 136% of the WT clone (Fig 5A and 5B). As described in the genotype analysis, the antibody signals of each clones were normalized with their anti-HA signals. Indeed, the normalized signal pattern indicated an overall coherent avidity of Lenvervimab to all mutants (Fig 5C). In contrast, the polyclonal anti-HBsAg antibody signal was severely reduced in several mutants within the 2nd loop of ‘a’ determinant, such as K141I, P142L/S, D144A/E, G145K/R, N146S and T148I. Impaired antibody binding was reported for similar mutations in this epitope region [21]. It was notable that K141E and K141I, despite their difference in expression levels (i.e., anti-HA antibody signals), both bind coherently to Lenvervimab. D144A and D144E also shared this feature. G145K and G145R, well-known immune escape mutants, both showing low expression, also showed a consistent binding to Lenvervimab. These results indicate that unlike other anti-S antibodies that heavily depend on this critical epitope, Lenvervimab binding remains largely unaffected by mutations in this region. N146S showed a comparable binding to both antibodies. We noted that this antigen was expressed in a nonglycosylated form because of the mutation at essential glycosylation site [22] (Denaturing gel immunoblot in Supporting Information). C149R was not detectable by any of the three antibodies, suggesting a critical role of this cysteine residue in the expression of S antigens.

Fig 4. HBV S gene mutations investigated in this study.

Fig 4

A schematic diagram of S antigen depicted with the four transmembrane domains and amino acid residues comprising the two loops of dominant antigenic region (Genotype D, ayw). In circles are mutations in the antigenic ‘a’ determinant (in yellow) and mutations (except K160N) in the other region of S that overlap with some viral polymerase mutations conferring resistance to nucleos(t)ide drugs.

Table 2. S gene mutations investigated in this study.

Amino acid position Wild-type (Genotype D, ayw) Mutant Reference
117 S R / T [40]
120 P E / S / T [36]
123 T N [38]
124 C R / Y [38]
126 T I / A / N / S [38]
129 Q H / L [37]
130 G D /R [39]
133 M L [37]
134 Y N / R [41]
141 K E / I [39]
142 P S / L [39]
144 D A / E [36]
145 G R / K [36]
146 N S [41]
148 T I [42]
149 C R [39]
160 K N [36]
164 E A / D / G / V [36]
172 W L [36]
173 L F [36]
195 I M [36]
196 W L / S / V [36]
172, 195 W, I L, M [36]
172, 196 W, W L, L / L,S / L,V [36]
173, 195 L, I F, M [36]
173, 196 L, W F, L / F,S / F,V [36]

Fig 5. Lenvervimab binds coherently to S antigens of a variety of clinical mutants.

Fig 5

(A, B) S antigens mimicking a variety of clinical mutants were separated by native agarose gel and immunoblotted with Lenvervimab (upper), anti-HA (middle) or polyclonal anti-HBsAg (lower) antibodies. HBV1.3 was included as a control. Indicated below the image is the quantified signal intensity of each clone relative to that of wild-type (Genotype D). (C) Bars indicate specific antibody signals normalized with the anti-HA antibody signal. Average and standard errors of duplicate immunoblot analyses are shown. Lenvervivmab (dark bars) shows consistent binding to all clones, whereas the polyclonal anti-HBsAg antibody (light bars) shows severely reduced binding to mutants at residues 141~148. No antigen was expressed from the C149R clone.

Lenvervimab binds S antigens of drug-resistant variants

Nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) are widely used as antiviral drugs for the treatment of chronic HBV infection. However, long-term therapy with NAs leads to the development of drug-resistant mutations in the viral polymerase. Because the entire S gene is embedded within the viral polymerase gene, some viral polymerase mutations that confer drug resistance can cause amino acid sequence changes in HBsAg; major ones include E164D, W172L, L173F, I195M and W196L/S/V [23, 24]. We found that these mutations, either alone or in combination of doubles, do not affect Lenvervimab binding with the exceptions of E164A/D/G/V (Fig 6). We also found that Lenvervimab does not bind K160N. The lysine residue K160 had been reported as an important antigenic element of HBsAg [25, 26]. These results indicated that the residues K160 and E164 are critical for Lenvervimab binding.

Fig 6. Lenvervimab binds S antigens of drug-resistant variants.

Fig 6

(A) S antigen variations associated with drug-resistant viral polymerase mutations were separated by native agarose gel and immunoblotted with Lenvervimab (upper), anti-HA (middle) or polyclonal anti-HBsAg (lower) antibodies. Lenvervimab binds S antigens of most drug-resistant mutants except for those with mutations at residue E164. Lenvervimab binding was also impaired by mutation at residue K160, which is unrelated to drug resistance but is considered to be an antigenic element.

Discussion

Human plasma fraction HBIG is currently used for newborns of chronic carrier parents as a preventive measure and for immunosuppressed patients to control viral reactivation. Considering the cost and safety issue of a biologic product from vaccinated individuals and low specific activity of HBIG, the development of more safe and efficient antibodies that can replace HBIG is still needed [27]. Lenvervimab is a recombinant IgG1-type anti-S antibody initially derived from immunoglobulin genes of a vaccinated person. Our results indicated an overall consistent avidity of Lenvervimab to S antigens of all genotypes and major subtypes distributed worldwide. We also found that Lenvervimab binding was not affected by a variety of sequence changes found in clinical variants, particularly in the antigenic ‘a’ determinant region. The immune escape mutant G145R is a notable one found in many cases of occult HBV infection and often undetected by routine assays, which has been attributed to the low level of circulating antigen as well as the reduced affinity to diagnostic antibodies [28]. Structural analysis on this mutant S protein indicated that a conformational change is the basis of the altered antibody binding [29]. Our results, while confirming a poor expression of this mutant antigen in vitro, nevertheless indicate that Lenvervimab binding was not notably affected. Lenvervimab also recognized a majority of the S antigen variants that are associated with nucleos(t)ide drug-resistant mutations of the viral polymerase gene within the overlapped genome region. Our results showing Lenvervimab to have a consistent recognition of many viral genotypes and clinical variants support strongly for a preventive potential of the antibody against HBV infection.

Materials and methods

Cell culture, plasmids and chemical reagents

Human hepatoma Huh7 cells (JCRB0403, JCRB Cell Bank, Tokyo, Japan) and HepG2-NTCP cells [30] that express the HBV receptor protein NTCP [31] were routinely cultured at 37°C in 5% CO2 in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS (HyClone, GE Healthcare Life Science, Chicago, IL, USA) and 50 μg/ml gentamicin (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). S gene sequence was PCR amplified from the HBV (Genotype D, ayw) construct pGEM-HBV1.2 [32] and inserted into pHM6-HA (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) with a hemagglutinin (HA) epitope at the N-terminus. Viral genotype and mutant clones were generated by site-directed mutagenesis. HBV1.3-mer WT replicon [33] was used for comparative purposes. JetPEI (Polyplus-transfection, Strasbourg, France) was used for DNA transfection.

Neutralization assay

HBV stocks were prepared from HepAD 38 cells as described [34]. HepG2-NTCP cells were incubated for 16 h at 37°C with viral inoculum (500 Genome equivalent/ml) that had been preincubated for 10 min at room temperature with 0.001~1 μg/ml of Lenvervimab or polyclonal anti-HBsAg rabbit antibody (NB100-62652, Novus Biologicals, Centennial, CO, USA) in DMEM containing 10% FBS, 4% PEG 8000 and 2.5% DMSO. Viral inoculum was removed after 16 h and replaced with fresh medium containing 2.5% DMSO but no PEG 8000. HBsAg in the culture media was measured after 5 days by ELISA (Genedia HBsAg ELISA 3.0, Korea Green Cross, Yongin, Korea), and intracellular core proteins were analyzed by immunoblotting with rabbit anti-HBcAg antibody as described [35].

Immunoblotting

Viral antigens secreted in an aliquot of culture supernatant were directly loaded onto a 1% agarose gel and capillary-transferred to an Immobilon-P transfer PVDF membrane (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) in 20 x SSC buffer (3 M NaCl and 0.3 M sodium acetate). The membrane was probed with Lenvervimab, anti-HA antibody (SC-7392, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) or polyclonal goat anti-HBsAg antibody (B0560, Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) in TBST buffer with 5% skim milk (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA). In some experiments, viral proteins in culture supernatants or cell lysate in RIPA buffer were separated on a denaturing polyacrylamide gel; transferred to a PVDF membrane; and probed with anti-HBcAg, anti-Hsp70 or anti-GAPDH (Santa Cruz) antibodies. HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) and ECL reagents (Visual Protein, New Taipei City, Republic of China) were used. The signal was quantified with ImageJ software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA).

ELISA

HBsAg secreted into culture supernatants was measured with Genedia HBsAg ELISA 3.0 (Korea Green Cross, Yongin, Korea) or anti-HA and HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies. Recombinant HBsAg (P4875, Abnova, Taipei City, Republic of China) was used as a standard antigen in the assay. Absorbance values at 450 nm were measured using a microplate spectrophotometer (Benchmark, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). Standard curve fitting and conversion to HBsAg concentration were performed by Excel software.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program Grant (#2018050379) of the Korea National Research Foundation (to B. Ahn) and by the collaborative research program of the Mogam Institute for Biomedical Research. G.U. Jeong was supported by the BK21 Plus program of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea.

References

  • 1.Lavanchy D, Kane M. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B virus infection Hepatitis B virus in human diseases: Springer; 2016. p. 187–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hu J, Liu K. Complete and incomplete hepatitis B virus particles: formation, function, and application. Viruses. 2017;9(3):56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shouval D. Hepatitis B vaccines. Journal of Hepatology. 2003;39:S70–6. 10.1016/s0168-8278(03)00152-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schillie S, Vellozzi C, Reingold A, Harris A, Haber P, Ward JW, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2018;67(1):1 10.15585/mmwr.rr6701a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wang W, Sun L, Li T, Ma Y, Li J, Liu Y, et al. , editors. A human monoclonal antibody against small envelope protein of hepatitis B virus with potent neutralization effect MAbs; 2016: Taylor & Francis. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shin Y-W, Ryoo K-H, Hong K-W, Chang K-H, Choi J-S, So M, et al. Human monoclonal antibody against Hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg). Antiviral research. 2007;75(2):113–20. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2007.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kim S-H, Shin YW, Hong K-W, Chang K-H, Ryoo K-H, Paik S-H, et al. Neutralization of hepatitis B virus (HBV) by human monoclonal antibody against HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) in chimpanzees. Antiviral research. 2008;79(3):188–91. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2008.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ireland JH, O'Donnell B, Basuni AA, Kean JD, Wallace LA, Lau GK, et al. Reactivity of 13 in vitroexpressed hepatitis B surface antigen variants in 7 commercial diagnostic assays. Hepatology. 2000;31(5):1176–82. 10.1053/he.2000.6407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Verheyen J, Neumann-Fraune M, Berg T, Kaiser R, Obermeier M. The detection of HBsAg mutants expressed in vitro using two different quantitative HBsAg assays. Journal of clinical virology. 2012;54(3):279–81. 10.1016/j.jcv.2012.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lenhoff RJ, Summers J. Coordinate regulation of replication and virus assembly by the large envelope protein of an avian hepadnavirus. Journal of virology. 1994;68(7):4565–71. 10.1128/JVI.68.7.4565-4571.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chai N, Chang HE, Nicolas E, Han Z, Jarnik M, Taylor J. Properties of subviral particles of hepatitis B virus. Journal of virology. 2008;82(16):7812–7. 10.1128/JVI.00561-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Seeger C, Mason WS. Hepatitis B virus biology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2000;64(1):51–68. 10.1128/mmbr.64.1.51-68.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gilbert RJ, Beales L, Blond D, Simon MN, Lin BY, Chisari FV, et al. Hepatitis B small surface antigen particles are octahedral. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:14783–8. 10.1073/pnas.0505062102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pourkarim MR, Amini-Bavil-Olyaee S, Kurbanov F, Van Ranst M, Tacke F. Molecular identification of hepatitis B virus genotypes/subgenotypes: revised classification hurdles and updated resolutions. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2014;20(23):7152 10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Croagh C, Desmond P, Bell S. Genotypes and viral variants in chronic hepatitis B: A review of epidemiology and clinical relevance. World J Hepatol 7 (3): 289–303. 2015. 10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bhatnagar PK, Papas E, Blum HE, Milich DR, Nitecki D, Karels MJ, et al. Immune response to synthetic peptide analogues of hepatitis B surface antigen specific for the a determinant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1982;79(14):4400–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zheng X, Weinberger KM, Gehrke R, Isogawa M, Hilken G, Kemper T, et al. Mutant hepatitis B virus surface antigens (HBsAg) are immunogenic but may have a changed specificity. Virology. 2004;329(2):454–64. 10.1016/j.virol.2004.08.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Coleman PF. Detecting hepatitis B surface antigen mutants. Emerging infectious diseases. 2006;12(2):198 10.3201/eid1203.050038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carman WF, Karayiannis P, Waters J, Thomas H, Zanetti A, Manzillo G, et al. Vaccine-induced escape mutant of hepatitis B virus. The lancet. 1990;336(8711):325–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Waters J, Kennedy M, Voet P, Hauser P, Petre J, Carman W, et al. Loss of the common. The Journal of clinical investigation. 1992;90(6):2543–7. 10.1172/JCI116148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Seddigh‐Tonekaboni S, Waters JA, Jeffers S, Gehrke R, Ofenloch B, Horsch A, et al. Effect of variation in the common “a” determinant on the antigenicity of hepatitis B surface antigen. Journal of medical virology. 2000;60(2):113–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Julithe R, Abou-Jaoudé G, Sureau C. Modification of the hepatitis B virus envelope protein glycosylation pattern interferes with secretion of viral particles, infectivity, and susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies. Journal of virology. 2014;88(16):9049–59. 10.1128/JVI.01161-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kazim SN, Sarin SK, Sharma BC, Khan LA, Hasnain SE. Characterization of naturally occurring and Lamivudine-induced surface gene mutants of hepatitis B virus in patients with chronic hepatitis B in India. Intervirology. 2006;49(3):152 10.1159/000089376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Romanò L, Paladini S, Galli C, Raimondo G, Pollicino T, Zanetti AR. Hepatitis B vaccination: are escape mutant viruses a matter of concern? Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics. 2015;11(1):53–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hiroaki O, Shigeru O, Yu W, Yukio I, Fumio T, Takeshi T, et al. The loss of subtypic determinants in alleles, d/y or w/r, on hepatitis B surface antigen. Molecular immunology. 1989;26(2):197–205. 10.1016/0161-5890(89)90102-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wu C, Zhang X, Tian Y, Song J, Yang D, Roggendorf M, et al. Biological significance of amino acid substitutions in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) for glycosylation, secretion, antigenicity and immunogenicity of HBsAg and hepatitis B virus replication. Journal of General Virology. 2010;91(2):483–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ehrlich PH, Moustafa ZA, Justice JC, Harfeldt KE, Kelley RL, Östberg L. Characterization of human monoclonal antibodies directed against hepatitis B surface antigen. Human Antibodies. 1992;3(1):2–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shahmoradi S, Yahyapour Y, Mahmoodi M, Alavian SM, Fazeli Z, Jazayeri SM. High prevalence of occult hepatitis B virus infection in children born to HBsAg-positive mothers despite prophylaxis with hepatitis B vaccination and HBIG. Journal of hepatology. 2012;57(3):515–21. 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rezaee R, Poorebrahim M, Najafi S, Sadeghi S, Pourdast A, Alavian SM, et al. Impacts of the G145R mutation on the structure and immunogenic activity of the hepatitis B surface antigen: a computational analysis. Hepatitis monthly. 2016;16(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Park I-H, Kwon Y-C, Ryu W-S, Ahn B-Y. Inhibition of hepatitis B virus replication by ligand-mediated activation of RNase L. Antiviral Research. 2014; 104:118–27. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2014.01.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yan H, Zhong G, Xu G, He W, Jing Z, Gao Z, et al. Sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide is a functional receptor for human hepatitis B and D virus. eLife. 2012;1:e00049 10.7554/eLife.00049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cha MY, Kim CM, Park YM, Ryu WS. Hepatitis B virus X protein is essential for the activation of Wnt/β‐catenin signaling in hepatoma cells. Hepatology. 2004;39(6):1683–93. 10.1002/hep.20245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wang H, Kim S, Ryu W-S. DDX3 DEAD-Box RNA helicase inhibits hepatitis B virus reverse transcription by incorporation into nucleocapsids. Journal of virology. 2009;83(11):5815–24. 10.1128/JVI.00011-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ladner SK, Otto MJ, Barker CS, Zaifert K, Wang G-H, Guo J-T, et al. Inducible expression of human hepatitis B virus (HBV) in stably transfected hepatoblastoma cells: a novel system for screening potential inhibitors of HBV replication. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 1997;41(8):1715–20. 10.1128/AAC.41.8.1715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jeong GU, Park I-H, Ahn K, Ahn B-Y. Inhibition of hepatitis B virus replication by a dNTPase-dependent function of the host restriction factor SAMHD1. Virology. 2016;495:71–8. 10.1016/j.virol.2016.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gao S, Duan Z-P, Coffin CS. Clinical relevance of hepatitis B virus variants. World journal of hepatology. 2015;7(8):1086 10.4254/wjh.v7.i8.1086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.He C, Nomura F, Itoga S, Isobe K, Nakai T. Prevalence of vaccine‐induced escape mutants of hepatitis B virus in the adult population in China: A prospective study in 176 restaurant employees. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2001;16(12):1373–7 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02654.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yamamoto K, Horikita M, Tsuda F, Itoh K, Akahane Y, Yotsumoto S, et al. Naturally occurring escape mutants of hepatitis B virus with various mutations in the S gene in carriers seropositive for antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen. Journal of virology. 1994;68(4):2671–6. 10.1128/JVI.68.4.2671-2676.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cooreman MP, Leroux-Roels G, Paulij WP. Vaccine-and hepatitis B immune globulin-induced escape mutations of hepatitis B virus surface antigen. Journal of biomedical science. 2001;8(3):237–47. 10.1007/BF02256597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Shi Y, Wei F, Hu D, Li Q, Smith D, Li N, et al. Mutations in the major hydrophilic region (MHR) of hepatitis B virus genotype C in North China. Journal of medical virology. 2012;84(12):1901–6. 10.1002/jmv.23419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Alexopoulou A, Dourakis SP, Pandelidaki H, Archimandritis AJ, Karayiannis P. Detection of a hepatitis B surface antigen variant emerging in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia treated with fludarabine. Journal of medical virology. 2006;78(8):1043–6. 10.1002/jmv.20660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hosseini SY, Sanaei N, Fattahi M-R, Malek-Hosseini SA, Sarvari J. Association of HBsAg mutation patterns with hepatitis B infection outcome: Asymptomatic carriers versus HCC/cirrhotic patients. Annals of hepatology. 2019;18(4):640–5. 10.1016/j.aohep.2018.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yury E Khudyakov

15 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-31577

A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript was reviewed by 2 experts in the field. Both identified many important problems in your submission and produced copious comments. Please review carefully all attached comments and provide point-by-point responses.  

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 30 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please give the sources of all cell lines used in your study.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by the GC Pharma Corp., and the Basic Science Research Program (#2018050379) of National Research Foundation of Korea. G. U. Jeong was supported by the BK21 Plus program of the Ministry of Education of Korea."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to commercial funding, we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding.

In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests.  If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how.

Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewer :

1, The study by Gi Uk Jeong et al, investigates that a recombinant human IgG1 type anti-S antibody, named Lenvervimab, neutralizes HBV infection in a cell culture. However, this study has not used the other HBV genotypes except genotype D in infection models (HepG2-ntcp), if you want to indicate an overall consistent avidity of the antibody to the S antigens of most viral genotypes distributed worldwide, HBV genotype D is not enough in infection models.

2, Furthermore, Lenvervimab only binds nondenatured forms of HBsAg and binds the S antigens of all viral genotypes also a variety of clinical mutants, it is important to demonstrate the specific epitope Lenvervimab bind to and explain why Lenvervimab only binds nondenatured forms of HBsAg but not in denaturing conditions.

3, There is not enough evidence for Lenvervimab to show the clinical potential of the anti-S antibody for the prevention and treatment of HBV infection, maybe more experiments on the prevention and treatment of HBV infection in vivo/vitro are necessary.

4, “We noted neutralization activity at 10-fold lower concentrations of Lenvervimab when the antibody was pre-incubated with viral inoculum prior to infection (data not shown).” Why data not shown? antibody was pre-incubated with viral inoculum prior to infection maybe is the better way to neutralizes HBV infectivity.

5, Fig 1. “Lenvervimab neutralizes HBV infection in culture.” HBcAg immunoblotting is not clear. Please add the optical density information.

6, Fig2: “Lenvervimab binds HBsAg only in nondenaturing conditions” , lack of a positive control antibody.

7, The clearly functional results of Lenvervimab in this study is missing.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript entitled ‘A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants’ by Jeong et al. They describe in an elegant fashion way how the monoclonal antibody ‘Lenvervimab’ interact with S antigen from different viral genotypes, mutants and clinical variants. They performed well elaborated immunoblottings and ELISA experiments demonstrating the potential clinical relevance of the Lenvimab antibody, which may in the future be a good tool or strategy for HBV infection treatments and study. It provides an original data and describes a relevant work. However, there are some issues that needs to be addressed.

Major comment

Line 61: This is one of your main results about neutralization activity. Your assay is an indirect assay for viral infectivity measurement, through HBsAg extracellular and intracellular production ratio. The ideal assay for viral neutralization assessment would be the foci or plaque neutralization assay. Anyway, my recommendation here is to not assume what has not been proved, and make clear that this is an indirect way of infectivity measurement.

Minor comments

Line 43: What do you mean by ‘assess the potential clinical utility of Lenvimab’? I understand that you may be referring to clinical treatment of infected patients, but it needs to be clarified in the phrase;

Line 46: I think a brief introduction phrase accompanied by a good reference about what is the common antigen ‘a’, would help some readers;

Line 80: Please, do not infer to your results as a ‘hoping’ that it will provide a more reliable information, trust your results and write this phrase more confident of it.

Line 94: How can you conclude that HA-HBs proteins are secreted in particle form? Please, include a reference if it is the case.

Line 137 – 140: I think this is not the focus of your work, my suggestion is to remove this phrase/speculation.

Line 167 – 170: Could you please provide reference(s) about the identification of all these clinical variants?

Line 193 – 195: You state that the denaturing gel detects only unglycosylated S protein from N146S, because this residue is responsible for glycosylation. Can you give a more detail or better explanation?

Line 223: You say that the residue E164 is important for the antigenic conformation of S antigen. However, I do not think you have data supporting that the S antigen changed its conformation. In addition, the residue E164 did not alter the ligation of the S antigen to the Anti-HBsAg. I suppose the only think you can infer here, is that this residue is critical for Lenvervimab ligation.

Line 227: Again, please explain how you can infer that K160 and E164 are important conformational antigenic determinants.

Line 254 - 256: Here, you assume that Lenvervimab neutralizes viral infectivity. However, what you observe here is partial neutralization observed by and indirect capture ELISA in cell culture system. I think you should rewrite more cautious about this conclusion.

Line 268 – 269: Please, include a reference about the relation between the clinical mutated isolates and Immune scape, occult infection and resistance to antivirals.

Line 292 – 293: Can you show the results demonstrating the antibody binding restoration with the double point mutations K160N/E164V? Otherwise, you should remove this. This is a critical criteria for Plos One, to make all data supporting your findings available.

Line 298 – 301: This is not the focus of your work. I think you should omit or reduced this statement and elaborate better about your findings.

Line 308: Do you have a reference for this receptor protein NTCP?

Line 318 – 319: What total volume did you keep your inoculum + antibodies during this 16h? Did you keep it on a rocking plate at 37°C?

Line 346: Please, elaborate better how was the statistic analyses performed

Writing/English comments

Line 39: ... recombinant monoclonal anti-S...

Line 41: ... utilizing a monkey animal model.

Line 42: In the current work, we evaluate the antibody neutralizing activity in cell culture system'

Line 44: ‘…genotypes and clinical variants. ’

Line 53: ‘… had previously been demonstrated in chimpanzee animal model. ’

Line 77: ‘...each clone variant differs in its expression... ’

Line 78 – 81: In this phrase, I think you should make more clear what is the point of adding HA glycoprotein to N-terminus of S protein clones (comparison and interaction measurement relative to Lenvervimab and AntiBsAg).

Line 134: ‘...expression/secretion of S antigen by genotypes... ’

Line 135: ‘We confirmed this result by the ELISA detection ratio between Lenvervimab and Anti-HBsAg to Anti-HA’

Line 148: ‘...referred here as wild (WT)... ’

Line 148: ‘The image is a representative of two independent experiments... ’

Line 165: ‘...and the most common and stable one is the G145R,... ’

Line 166: ‘...from/of a carrier mother. ’

Line 222: ‘…S gene mutations (Table 2) did not…’

Line 266: ‘Because this ‘a’ epitope is in a highly conformational and hydrophilic, these…’

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Marcilio Jorge Fumagalli

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 13;15(8):e0236704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236704.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Jun 2020

Reviewer #1:

1, The study by Gi Uk Jeong et al, investigates that a recombinant human IgG1 type anti-S antibody, named Lenvervimab, neutralizes HBV infection in a cell culture. However, this study has not used the other HBV genotypes except genotype D in infection models (HepG2-ntcp), if you want to indicate an overall consistent avidity of the antibody to the S antigens of most viral genotypes distributed worldwide, HBV genotype D is not enough in infection models.

--> Yes, only the genotype D virus was examined for neutralization. Central to its neutralization, however, lies the antibody binding of antigens. In this regard, we have examined Lenvervimab binding to antigens of many genotypes and clinical variants, which comprise the major portion of this work.

2, Furthermore, Lenvervimab only binds nondenatured forms of HBsAg and binds the S antigens of all viral genotypes also a variety of clinical mutants, it is important to demonstrate the specific epitope Lenvervimab bind to and explain why Lenvervimab only binds nondenatured forms of HBsAg but not in denaturing conditions.

-->No specific (linear) epitope could be defined for Lenvervimab. Consistent binding of many sequence variations in the structurally conserved antigenic regions, and the requirement of an exclusively nondenaturing condition strongly suggest that Lenvervimab binding more likely depends on antigen conformations.

3, There is not enough evidence for Lenvervimab to show the clinical potential of the anti-S antibody for the prevention and treatment of HBV infection, maybe more experiments on the prevention and treatment of HBV infection in vivo/vitro are necessary.

�Our data showing consistent recognition of many viral genotypes and clinical variants support the potential value of Lenvervimab for preventive purposes. We have revised Abstract, Introduction and Discussion, focusing on this point.

4, “We noted neutralization activity at 10-fold lower concentrations of Lenvervimab when the antibody was pre-incubated with viral inoculum prior to infection (data not shown).” Why data not shown? antibody was pre-incubated with viral inoculum prior to infection maybe is the better way to neutralizes HBV infectivity.

�We have taken the current protocol to keep the volume of viral inoculum and concentration of virus and antibody constant throughout the preincubation and infection periods. We have removed the quoted paragraph as it was not fully supported by data.

5, Fig 1. “Lenvervimab neutralizes HBV infection in culture.” HBcAg immunoblotting is not clear. Please add the optical density information.

�Quantitative information has been added in the figure 1.

6, Fig2: “Lenvervimab binds HBsAg only in nondenaturing conditions” , lack of a positive control antibody.

�Lenvervimab is unique in this respect. Anti-HA antibody and another anti-HBsAg antibody (from Dako) bind the antigen in nondenaturing and in denaturing conditions.

7, The clearly functional results of Lenvervimab in this study is missing.

� Specific recognition and binding of viral antigens and many closely related variants as we have characterized are important functions of the antibody.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript entitled ‘A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants’ by Jeong et al. They describe in an elegant fashion way how the monoclonal antibody ‘Lenvervimab’ interact with S antigen from different viral genotypes, mutants and clinical variants. They performed well elaborated immunoblottings and ELISA experiments demonstrating the potential clinical relevance of the Lenvervimab antibody, which may in the future be a good tool or strategy for HBV infection treatments and study. It provides an original data and describes a relevant work. However, there are some issues that needs to be addressed.

Major comment

Line 61: This is one of your main results about neutralization activity. Your assay is an indirect assay for viral infectivity measurement, through HBsAg extracellular and intracellular production ratio. The ideal assay for viral neutralization assessment would be the foci or plaque neutralization assay. Anyway, my recommendation here is to not assume what has not been proved, and make clear that this is an indirect way of infectivity measurement.

�Because it is difficult to measure HBV foci or plaques in cell culture, we measured the extracellular HBsAg and intracellular HBcAg to assess the viral infectivity and inhibition thereof by antibody. We have revised the text accordingly (Line 55-58).

Minor comments

Line 43: What do you mean by ‘assess the potential clinical utility of Lenvervimab’? I understand that you may be referring to clinical treatment of infected patients, but it needs to be clarified in the phrase;

�We have revised the term to indicate ‘preventive utility’ of the antibody (Lines 40, 47-48).

Line 46: I think a brief introduction phrase accompanied by a good reference about what is the common antigen ‘a’, would help some readers;

�We have added a brief mentioning of the ‘a’ epitope (Line 44-45) as a more detailed information and reference are provided in the 3rd sections of Results.

Line 80: Please, do not infer to your results as a ‘hoping’ that it will provide a more reliable information, trust your results and write this phrase more confident of it.

�Good point. We have revised the paragraph (lines 74-76) as recommended.

Line 94: How can you conclude that HA-HBs proteins are secreted in particle form? Please, include a reference if it is the case.

� We have provided references (Lines 86-88). In our part, S protein samples in cell culture supernatant can be resolved (i.e., retained) in agarose gel. Also, the antigen samples are precipitable by centrifugation at a low speed (10,000x g).

Line 137 – 140: I think this is not the focus of your work, my suggestion is to remove this phrase/speculation.

�We agree with the referee’s point and removed the paragraph and placed the sequence alignment in the Supporting Information.

Line 167 – 170: Could you please provide reference(s) about the identification of all these clinical variants?

�We have included the references in Table 2.

Line 193 – 195: You state that the denaturing gel detects only unglycosylated S protein from N146S, because this residue is responsible for glycosylation. Can you give a more detail or better explanation?

�Glycosylation of S protein at N146 is well established. With anti-HA antibody we detected two bands (24 and 27 kDa) from all S clones. From N146S, only the smaller band (24 kDa) was detected (Blot image in Supporting Info). We have revised the text accordingly (Lines 157-159).

Line 223: You say that the residue E164 is important for the antigenic conformation of S antigen. However, I do not think you have data supporting that the S antigen changed its conformation. In addition, the residue E164 did not alter the ligation of the S antigen to the Anti-HBsAg. I suppose the only thing you can infer here, is that this residue is critical for Lenvervimab ligation.

Line 227: Again, please explain how you can infer that K160 and E164 are important conformational antigenic determinants.

�Our data show that mutation of K160 (and E164) abolishes Lenvervimab binding, but not the binding of Dako’s anti-HBsAg antibody. We do not know whether (or how) the mutation in these residues affect antigen conformation. Mobility of the mutant in nondenaturing gel appeared normal. We have revised the paragraph (Line 187-188) accordingly.

Line 254 - 256: Here, you assume that Lenvervimab neutralizes viral infectivity. However, what you observe here is partial neutralization observed by and indirect capture ELISA in cell culture system. I think you should rewrite more cautious about this conclusion.

�We have removed this part of Discussion as it (“partial neutralization”) was described in Result.

Line 268 – 269: Please, include a reference about the relation between the clinical mutated isolates and Immune scape, occult infection and resistance to antivirals.

�We have provided the references in Table 2.

Line 292 – 293: Can you show the results demonstrating the antibody binding restoration with the double point mutations K160N/E164V? Otherwise, you should remove this. This is critical criteria for Plos One, to make all data supporting your findings available.

�We have removed this part as recommended.

Line 298 – 301: This is not the focus of your work. I think you should omit or reduced this statement and elaborate better about your findings.

�We agree with the referee’s point and removed this part.

Line 308: Do you have a reference for this receptor protein NTCP?

�We have included the reference.

Line 318 – 319: What total volume did you keep your inoculum + antibodies during this 16h? Did you keep it on a rocking plate at 37°C?

� We kept the liquid volume the same to keep the concentrations and ratio of virus and antibody constant throughout the 10-min preincubation (virus + antibody) at r.t. followed by the 16-hr infection at 37°C without rocking. We have elaborated the procedure in more detail (Lines 230-232).

Line 346: Please, elaborate better how was the statistic analyses performed

�It was specified in the figure legends (Lines 64-66).

Writing/English comments

Line 39: ... recombinant monoclonal anti-S...

Line 41: ... utilizing a monkey animal model.

Line 42: In the current work, we evaluate the antibody neutralizing activity in cell culture system'

Line 44: ‘…genotypes and clinical variants. ’

Line 53: ‘… had previously been demonstrated in chimpanzee animal model. ’

Line 77: ‘...each clone variant differs in its expression... ’

Line 78 – 81: In this phrase, I think you should make more clear what is the point of adding HA glycoprotein to N-terminus of S protein clones (comparison and interaction measurement relative to Lenvervimab and AntiBsAg).

Line 134: ‘...expression/secretion of S antigen by genotypes... ’

Line 135: ‘We confirmed this result by the ELISA detection ratio between Lenvervimab and Anti-HBsAg to Anti-HA’

Line 148: ‘...referred here as wild (WT)... ’

Line 148: ‘The image is a representative of two independent experiments... ’

Line 165: ‘...and the most common and stable one is the G145R,... ’

Line 166: ‘...from/of a carrier mother. ’

Line 222: ‘…S gene mutations (Table 2) did not…’

Line 266: ‘Because this ‘a’ epitope is in a highly conformational and hydrophilic, these…’

�Thanks to the referee, we have revised the phrases

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yury E Khudyakov

14 Jul 2020

A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants

PONE-D-19-31577R1

Dear Dr. Ahn,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Marcilio Jorge Fumagalli

Acceptance letter

Yury E Khudyakov

21 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-31577R1

A recombinant human immunoglobulin with coherent avidity to hepatitis B virus surface antigens of various viral genotypes and clinical mutants

Dear Dr. Ahn:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yury E Khudyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES