Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 RBD molecule with a T helper epitope as a built in adjuvant induces strong neutralization antibody response

  1. Qiudong Su
  2. Yening Zou
  3. Yao Yi
  4. Liping Shen
  5. Xiangzhong Ye
  6. Yang Zhang
  7. Hui Wang
  8. Hong Ke
  9. Jingdong Song
  10. Keping Hu
  11. Bolin Cheng
  12. Feng Qiu
  13. Pengcheng Yu
  14. Wenting Zhou
  15. Lei Cao
  16. Shengli Bi
  17. Guizhen Wu
  18. George Fu Gao
  19. Jerry Zheng

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Without approved vaccines and specific treatment, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading around the world with above 20 million COVID-19 cases and approximately 700 thousand deaths until now. An efficacious and affordable vaccine is urgently needed. The Val308 – Gly548 of Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 linked with Gln830 – Glu843 of Tetanus toxoid (TT peptide) (designated as S1-4) and without TT peptide (designated as S1-5), and prokaryotic expression, chromatography purification and the rational renaturation of the protein were performed. The antigenicity and immunogenicity of S1-4 protein was evaluated by Western Blotting (WB) in vitro and immune responses in mice, respectively. The protective efficiency of it was measured by virus neutralization test in Vero E6 cells with SARS-CoV-2. S1-4 protein was prepared to high homogeneity and purity by prokaryotic expression and chromatography purification. Adjuvanted with Alum, S1-4 protein stimulated a strong antibody response in immunized mice and caused a major Th2-type cellular immunity compared with S1-5 protein. Furthermore, the immunized sera could protect the Vero E6 cells from SARS-CoV-2 infection with neutralization antibody GMT 256. The candidate subunit vaccine molecule could stimulate strong humoral and Th1 and Th2-type cellular immune response in mice, giving us solid evidence that S1-4 protein could be a promising subunit vaccine candidate.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.21.262188: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.21.262188 on bioRxiv