Rapid, robust, and sustainable antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in convalescent COVID-19 individuals

  1. Sabrina E. Racine-Brzostek
  2. Jim K. Yee
  3. Ashley Sukhu
  4. Yuqing Qiu
  5. Sophie Rand
  6. Paul D. Barone
  7. Ying Hao
  8. He S. Yang
  9. Qing H. Meng
  10. Fred S. Apple
  11. Yuanyuan Shi
  12. Amy Chadburn
  13. Encouse Golden
  14. Silvia C. Formenti
  15. Melissa M. Cushing
  16. Zhen Zhao

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

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1172/jci.insight.151477
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.04.21261561: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Sources of serum specimens and data acquisition: The standard practice for serum collection and storage in the clinical laboratories involves collecting venous blood into a serum separator tube and centrifuging the specimen (1500g for 7 minutes) within 2 hours of collection to separate cells from serum.
    IRB: Study approval: The retrospective (IRB#20-03021671) and prospective (IRB#20-11022929; IRB#20-04021831) studies in this manuscript were performed at NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center (NYP/WCMC) with approval by the Institutional Review Board of Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    (Figure 1) SARS-CoV-2 total RBD antibody, surrogate neutralizing antibody assay and avidity assays: The SARS-CoV-2 total receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody (TAb), surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb) and avidity were used to measure serum antibody levels on the TOP-Plus (Pylon 3D analyzer; ET HealthCare, Palo Alto, CA), and were previously described. (23) The TAb assay measures the overall interaction between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and the RBD of the virus spike (S) protein, with a read out of sample relative fluorescence unit (RFU).
    SARS-CoV-2 total RBD
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 total receptor-binding domain (RBD
    suggested: None
    SNAb is a competitive binding assay, based on the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-mediated inhibition of the interaction between the ACE2 receptor protein and the RBD.
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    A higher intrinsic binding strength of a paratope to RBD or addition of paratopes to the antibody structure results in a higher binding strength, which results in a lower dR of the antibody-RBD pair.
    antibody-RBD
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    (Figure 1) SARS-CoV-2 total RBD antibody, surrogate neutralizing antibody assay and avidity assays: The SARS-CoV-2 total receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody (TAb), surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb) and avidity were used to measure serum antibody levels on the TOP-Plus (Pylon 3D analyzer; ET HealthCare, Palo Alto, CA), and were previously described. (23) The TAb assay measures the overall interaction between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and the RBD of the virus spike (S) protein, with a read out of sample relative fluorescence unit (RFU).
    ET HealthCare
    suggested: None
    Analyses were performed in statistical programming language R version 4.0.2 (2020-06-22) or in GraphPad Prism Version 9.1.2 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Our study has several limitations. First, selection bias may exist in both the prospective and retrospective studies. As the HospNoVax and OutPtNoVax specimen in the study were retrospectively collected, the study was reliant on pre-existing data and remnant specimens. During this early time period of the pandemic in New York City, most hospitalized individuals were older, with more severe symptoms and predominately male,(41)which was reflected in our cohort (median age 67.5 years, IQR 54.0-77.0; 66% Male). The prospective study participants were younger, approaching or at middle age (overall median age 44.4 years, IQR 33.6-57.4) and predominantly female (74%). Indeed, the better population for comparison are OutPtNoVax, but there was insufficient data to perform a direct comparison at those similar timepoints Additional bias may exist with the prospective vaccination study volunteers, as study participants were healthcare workers (eligible for the vaccine in late December 2020 to January 2021), possibly reflecting a study population with fewer comorbidities. Together with the small sample size (n=60), these results may not represent those of the general population.(42, 43) Second, given the exploratory nature of the study and limited sample size, post-hoc adjustments were not performed. This small study size also prevented multivariate analysis to look for possible confounders between the cohorts. For example, a previous study found SNAb to be age associated in ...

    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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.04.21261561 on medRxiv