Comparative quantitative analysis of SARS- CoV-2 Spike neutralizing antibody titers following two anti COVID-19 vaccines in India

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

In COVID 19 Pandemic,first line of defence is effective vaccination program.Because of multiple platforms available for vaccine production we tested relative immunogenicity of two vaccines available in India, Covaxin® and Covishield® We performed quantitative analysis of neutralizing antibodies to SARS Cov2 spike (receptor binding domain) protein, from sera of 53 subjects who completed vaccines schedules.There was significantly higher immunogenic response with Covishield® as compared to Covaxin® and are independent of age. Studies on a large scale with long term follow up are needed to further advance the knowledge in this domain.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.28.21262753: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableResults Of the 53 subjects (males 30 and females 23), 28 have titers ≥ 250.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We quantified serum IgG anti spike neutralizing antibodies directed for receptor binding domain (RBD), employing CLIA Any numeric value over and above 250 was rounded off to 250.
    serum IgG
    suggested: None
    spike neutralizing antibodies directed for receptor binding domain (RBD), employing CLIA Any numeric value over and above 250 was rounded off to 250.
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    For Covaxin® it was 23.7 ± 50.05 and for Covishield® it was 126 ± 149 .p value was 0.04 (p < 0.05 being statistically significant).
    Covaxin®
    suggested: None

    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.


    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.