mRNA vaccination compared to infection elicits an IgG-predominant response with greater SARS-CoV-2 specificity and similar decrease in variant spike recognition
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
During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, new vaccine strategies including lipid nanoparticle delivery of antigen encoding RNA have been deployed globally. The BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 encoding SARS-CoV-2 spike protein shows 95% efficacy in preventing disease, but it is unclear how the antibody responses to vaccination differ from those generated by infection. Here we compare the magnitude and breadth of antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, and endemic coronaviruses, in vaccinees and infected patients. We find that vaccination differs from infection in the dominance of IgG over IgM and IgA responses, with IgG reaching levels similar to those of severely ill COVID-19 patients and shows decreased breadth of the antibody response targeting endemic coronaviruses. Viral variants of concern from B.1.1.7 to P.1 to B.1.351 form a remarkably consistent hierarchy of progressively decreasing antibody recognition by both vaccinees and infected patients exposed to Wuhan-Hu-1 antigens.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.21254952: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources RESOURCE AVAILABILITY: EXPERIMENTAL MODELS AND SUBJECT DETAILS: METHOD DETAILS: QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical tests were performed in R using base packages for statistical analysis and the ggplot2 package was used for graphics. ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)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 LimitationRec…SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.21254952: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources RESOURCE AVAILABILITY: EXPERIMENTAL MODELS AND SUBJECT DETAILS: METHOD DETAILS: QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical tests were performed in R using base packages for statistical analysis and the ggplot2 package was used for graphics. ggplot2suggested: (ggplot2, RRID:SCR_014601)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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
