SARS-CoV-2 binding and neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S predict durable protection in rhesus macaques

  1. Ramon Roozendaal
  2. Laura Solforosi
  3. Daniel Stieh
  4. Jan Serroyen
  5. Roel Straetemans
  6. Frank Wegmann
  7. Sietske K. Rosendahl Huber
  8. Joan E. M. van der Lubbe
  9. Jenny Hendriks
  10. Mathieu le Gars
  11. Liesbeth Dekking
  12. Dominika N. Czapska-Casey
  13. Nuria Guimera
  14. Sarah Janssen
  15. Sarah Tete
  16. Abishek Chandrashekar
  17. Noe Mercado
  18. Jingyou Yu
  19. Wouter Koudstaal
  20. Jerry Sadoff
  21. Dan H. Barouch
  22. Hanneke Schuitemaker
  23. Roland Zahn

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

The first COVID-19 vaccines have recently gained authorization for emergency use. 1,2 At this moment, limited knowledge on duration of immunity and efficacy of these vaccines is available. Data on other coronaviruses after natural infection suggest that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 might be short lived, 3,4 and preliminary evidence indicates waning antibody titers following SARS-CoV-2 infection. 5 Here we model the relationship between immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a series of Ad26 vectors encoding stabilized variants of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein in rhesus macaques 6,7,8 and validate the analyses by challenging macaques 6 months after immunization with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine candidate that has been selected for clinical development. We find that Ad26.COV2.S confers durable protection against replication of SARS-CoV-2 in the lungs that is predicted by the levels of S-binding and neutralizing antibodies. These results suggest that Ad26.COV2.S could confer durable protection in humans and that immunological correlates of protection may enable the prediction of durability of protection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.30.428921: (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 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.01.30.428921 on bioRxiv