Reduced sera neutralization to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 by both inactivated and protein subunit vaccines and the convalescents

  1. Xin Zhao
  2. Dedong Li
  3. Wenjing Ruan
  4. Rong Zhang
  5. Anqi Zheng
  6. Shitong Qiao
  7. Xinlei Zheng
  8. Yingze Zhao
  9. Zhihai Chen
  10. Lianpan Dai
  11. Pengcheng Han
  12. George F. Gao

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Omicron variant continues to spread all over the world. There are lots of scientific questions remaining to be answered for such a devastating variant. There are a dozen of vaccines already in clinical use. The very urgent scientific question would be whether or not these vaccines can protect Omicron variant. Here, we tested the sera from both convalescents and vaccine recipients receiving either inactivated or protein subunits vaccines (CoronaVac from Sinovac, or BBIBP-CoV from Sinopharm, or ZF2001 from Zhifei longcom) for the binding antibody titers (ELISA) and neutralization antibodies titers (pseudovirus neutralization assay). We showed that Omicron do have severe immune escape in convalescents, with 15 of 16 were negative in neutralization. By contrast, in vaccinees who received three jabs of inactivated or protein subunit vaccine, the neutralizing activity was much better preserved. Especially in the ZF2001 group with an extended period of the second and third jab (4-6 months) remains 100% positive in Omicron neutralization, with only 3.1-folds reduction in neutralizing antibody (NAb) titer. In this case, we proposed that, the multi-boost strategy with an extended interval between the second and third jab for immune maturation would be beneficial for NAb against devastating variants such as Omicron.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.16.472391: (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

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.16.472391v1 on bioRxiv