Analysis of Host Immunological Response of Adenovirus-Based COVID-19 Vaccines

  1. Suzan Farhang-Sardroodi
  2. Chapin S. Korosec
  3. Samaneh Gholami
  4. Morgan Craig
  5. Iain R. Moyles
  6. Mohammad Sajjad Ghaemi
  7. Hsu Kiang Ooi
  8. Jane M. Heffernan

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

During the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic, several vaccines, including mRNA and adenovirus vector approaches, have received emergency or full approval. However, supply chain logistics have hampered global vaccine delivery, which is impacting mass vaccination strategies. Recent studies have identified different strategies for vaccine dose administration so that supply constraints issues are diminished. These include increasing the time between consecutive doses in a two-dose vaccine regimen and reducing the dosage of the second dose. We consider both of these strategies in a mathematical modeling study of a non-replicating viral vector adenovirus vaccine in this work. We investigate the impact of different prime-boost strategies by quantifying their effects on immunological outcomes based on simple system of ordinary differential equations. The boost dose is administered either at a standard dose (SD) of 1000 or at a low dose (LD) of 500 or 250 vaccine particles. Results show dose-dependent immune response activity. Our model predictions show that by stretching the prime-boost interval to 18 or 20, in an SD/SD or SD/LD regimen, the minimum promoted antibody (Nab) response will be comparable with the neutralizing antibody level measured in COVID-19 recovered patients. Results also show that the minimum stimulated antibody in SD/SD regimen is identical with the high level observed in clinical trial data. We conclude that an SD/LD regimen may provide protective capacity, which will allow for conservation of vaccine doses.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines9080861
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.24.21259460: (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.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.06.24.21259460 on medRxiv