Previously infected vaccinees broadly neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants

  1. Hans C. Leier
  2. Timothy A. Bates
  3. Zoe L. Lyski
  4. Savannah K. McBride
  5. David X. Lee
  6. Felicity J. Coulter
  7. James R. Goodman
  8. Zhengchun Lu
  9. Marcel E. Curlin
  10. William B. Messer
  11. Fikadu G. Tafesse

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

We compared the serum neutralizing antibody titers before and after two doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in ten individuals who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination to 20 individuals with no history of infection, against clinical isolates of B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccination boosted pre-existing levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies 10-fold in previously infected individuals, but not to levels significantly higher than those of uninfected vaccinees. However, neutralizing antibody titers increased in previously infected vaccinees relative to uninfected vaccinees against every variant tested: 5.2-fold against B.1.1.7, 6.5-fold against B.1.351, 4.3-fold against P.1, and 3.4-fold against original SARS-CoV-2. Our study indicates that a first-generation COVID-19 vaccine provides broad protection from SARS-CoV-2variants in individuals with previous infection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Materials and Methods: Statistical analysis: Aggregated ELISA endpoint titers and FRNT50 values were analyzed in GraphPad Prism (v9.0.2).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049 on medRxiv