Efficacy of ancestral receptor-binding domain, S1 and trimeric spike protein vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.617.1
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are based on spike (S) protein, S1 subunit, or receptor-binding domain (RBD) of prototype strain. Emergence of several novel SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concern about potential immune escape. In this study, we performed an immunogenicity comparison of ancestral RBD, S1, and S ectodomain trimer (S-trimer) antigens and tested the efficacy of these prototype vaccines against the circulating variants, especially B.1.617 that has been linked to India’s current COVID-19 surge. We found that RBD and S-trimer proteins could induce significantly higher neutralizing antibody titers than S1 protein. For the three vaccines, the neutralizing titers decreased over time, but still remained high for at least five months after immunization. Importantly, the three prototype vaccines were still effective in neutralizing the variants of concern, although B.1.351 and B.1.617.1 lineages showed varying degrees of reduction in neutralization by the immune sera. The vaccines-induced sera were shown to block receptor binding and inhibit S protein-mediated membrane fusion. In addition, the immune sera did not promote antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in vitro . Our work provides valuable information for development of SARS-CoV-2 subunit vaccines and also supports the continued use of ancestral RBD or S-based vaccines to fight the COVID-19 epidemic.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.02.446698: (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 10.1101/2021.06.02.446698: (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.
-
