Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection Increases B.1.1.7 Cross-Neutralization by Vaccinated Individuals

  1. Benjamin Trinité
  2. Edwards Pradenas
  3. Silvia Marfil
  4. Carla Rovirosa
  5. Víctor Urrea
  6. Ferran Tarrés-Freixas
  7. Raquel Ortiz
  8. Jordi Rodon
  9. Júlia Vergara-Alert
  10. Joaquim Segalés
  11. Victor Guallar
  12. Rosalba Lepore
  13. Nuria Izquierdo-Useros
  14. Glòria Trujillo
  15. Jaume Trapé
  16. Carolina González-Fernández
  17. Antonia Flor
  18. Rafel Pérez-Vidal
  19. Ruth Toledo
  20. Anna Chamorro
  21. Roger Paredes
  22. Ignacio Blanco
  23. Eulàlia Grau
  24. Marta Massanella
  25. Jorge Carrillo
  26. Bonaventura Clotet
  27. Julià Blanco

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With the spread of new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there is a need to assess the protection conferred by both previous infections and current vaccination. Here we tested the neutralizing activity of infected and/or vaccinated individuals against pseudoviruses expressing the spike of the original SARS-CoV-2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1), the D614G mutant and the B.1.1.7 variant. Our data show that parameters of natural infection (time from infection and nature of the infecting variant) determined cross-neutralization. Uninfected vaccinees showed a small reduction in neutralization against the B.1.1.7 variant compared to both the WH1 strain and the D614G mutant. Interestingly, upon vaccination, previously infected individuals developed more robust neutralizing responses against B.1.1.7, suggesting that vaccines can boost the neutralization breadth conferred by natural infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v13061135
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.05.433800: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.03.05.433800v1 on bioRxiv