Population differences in antibody response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and BNT162b2 vaccination
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The concentration of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific serum antibodies, elicited by vaccination or infection, is a primary determinant of anti‐viral immunity, which correlates with protection against infection and COVID‐19. Serum samples were obtained from 25 897 participants and assayed for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein RBD IgG antibodies. The cohort was composed of newly vaccinated BNT162b2 recipients, in the first month or 6 months after vaccination, COVID‐19 patients and a general sample of the Israeli population. Antibody levels of BNT162b2 vaccine recipients were negatively correlated with age, with a prominent decrease in recipients over 55 years old, which was most significant in males. This trend was observable within the first month and 6 months after vaccination, while younger participants were more likely to maintain stable levels of serum antibodies. The antibody concentration of participants previously infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 was lower than the vaccinated and had a more complex, non‐linear relation to age, sex and COVID‐19 symptoms. Taken together, our data supports age and sex as primary determining factors for both the magnitude and durability of humoral response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and the COVID‐19 vaccine. Our results could inform vaccination policies, prioritizing the most susceptible populations for repeated vaccination.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.07.21259499: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.07.21259499: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
