Neutralization against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 with sera of COVID-19 recovered cases and vaccinees of BBV152
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
- Evaluated articles (Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
Recently, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants have been detected across the globe. The recent emergence of B.1.617 lineage has created serious public health problem in India. The high transmissibility was observed with this lineage which has led to daily increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Apparently, the sub-lineage B.1.617.2 has slowly dominated the other variants including B1617.1, B.617.3 and B.1.1.7. With this, World Health Organization has described B.1.617.2 as variant of concern. Besides this, variant of concern B.1.351 has been also reported from India, known to showreducedefficacyfor many approved vaccines. With the increasing threat of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, it is imperative to assess the efficacy of the currently available vaccines against these variants. Here, we have evaluated the neutralization potential of sera collected from COVID-19 recovered cases (n=20) and vaccinees with two doses of BBV152 (n=17) against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 compared to the prototype B.1 (D614G) variant.The finding of the study demonstrated a reduction in neutralization titers with sera of COVID-19 recovered cases(3.3-fold and 4.6-fold) and BBV152 vaccinees (3. 0 and 2.7 fold) against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 respectively.Although, there is reduction in neutralization titer, the whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBV152) demonstrates protective response against VOC B.1351 and B.1.617.2.
Article activity feed
-
Ran Taube
Review 2: "Neutralization against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 with sera of COVID-19 recovered cases and vaccinees of BBV152"
This paper presents reliable findings about the efficacy of BBV152 against VOCs B.1351 and B.1.617.2. Although the reviewers agree on the urgency and relevance of this paper they raised concerns about undisclosed affiliations of the authors and the sample size used in the study.
-
Daniele Focosi
Review 3: "Neutralization against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 with sera of COVID-19 recovered cases and vaccinees of BBV152"
This paper presents reliable findings about the efficacy of BBV152 against VOCs B.1351 and B.1.617.2. Although the reviewers agree on the urgency and relevance of this paper they raised concerns about undisclosed affiliations of the authors and the sample size used in the study.
-
Strength of evidence
Reviewers: Nathaniel Roy Landau (NYU Langone Medical Center) | 📗📗📗📗◻️
Ran Taube (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) |📘📘📘📘📘
Daniele Focosi (Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana) | 📘📘📘📘📘 -
Nathaniel Roy Landau
Review 1: "Neutralization against B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 with sera of COVID-19 recovered cases and vaccinees of BBV152"
This paper presents reliable findings about the efficacy of BBV152 against VOCs B.1351 and B.1.617.2. Although the reviewers agree on the urgency and relevance of this paper they raised concerns about undisclosed affiliations of the authors and the sample size used in the study.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.05.447177: (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 10.1101/2021.06.05.447177: (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.
-
