An mRNA vaccine candidate for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

  1. Jinkai Zang
  2. Chao Zhang
  3. Yannan Yin
  4. Shiqi Xu
  5. Weihua Qiao
  6. Dimitri Lavillette
  7. Haikun Wang
  8. Zhong Huang

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

The newly emerged Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) contains more than 30 mutations on the spike protein, 15 of which are located within the receptor binding domain (RBD). Consequently, Omicron is able to extensively escape existing neutralizing antibodies and may therefore compromise the efficacy of current vaccines based on the original strain, highlighting the importance and urgency of developing effective vaccines against Omicron. Here we report the rapid generation and evaluation of an mRNA vaccine candidate specific to Omicron. This mRNA vaccine encodes the RBD of Omicron (designated RBD-O) and is formulated with lipid nanoparticle. Two doses of the RBD-O mRNA vaccine efficiently induce neutralizing antibodies in mice; however, the antisera are effective only on the Omicron variant but not on the wildtype and Delta strains, indicating a narrow neutralization spectrum. It is noted that the neutralization profile of the RBD-O mRNA vaccine is opposite to that observed for the mRNA vaccine expressing the wildtype RBD (RBD-WT). Our work demonstrates the feasibility and potency of an RBD-based mRNA vaccine specific to Omicron, providing important information for further development of bivalent or multivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with broad-spectrum efficacy.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.07.479348: (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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 8. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.07.479348 on bioRxiv