The Kinetics of COVID-19 Vaccine Response in a Community-Vaccinated Population

  1. Michael K Tu
  2. Samantha H Chiang
  3. Richard A Bender
  4. David T W Wong
  5. Charles M Strom

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We used a noninvasive electrochemical quantitative assay for IgG Abs to SARS-CoV-2 S1 Ag in saliva to investigate the kinetics of Ab response in a community-based population that had received either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccine. Samples were received from a total of 97 individuals, including a subset of 42 individuals who collected samples twice weekly for 3 mo or longer. In all, >840 samples were collected and analyzed. In all individuals, salivary SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG Ab levels rose sharply in the 2-wk period after their second vaccination, with peak Ab levels seen at 10–20 d after vaccination. We observed that 20%, 10%, and 2.4% of individuals providing serial samples had a 90%, 95%, and 99% drop, respectively, from peak levels during the duration of monitoring, and in two patients, Abs fell to prevaccination levels (5%). The use of noninvasive quantitative salivary Ab measurement can allow widespread, cost-effective monitoring of vaccine response.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.4049/jimmunol.2100919
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.18.21263605: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Human Subjects: Research protocol and consents were approved by the Western Internal Review Board (Study #1302611, Expiration Date: March 19th, 2022).
    Field Sample Permit: Sample Processing Device and Protocol: Saliva samples were collected using the Orasure® Oral Fluid Collection Device (Orasure Technologies, Bethlehem, PA), which consists of an absorbent pad on the end of a long wand and a collection tube with preservative solution.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Internal standards consist of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (Absolute Antibody, Oxford, United Kingdom) diluted in 1% (w/v) Casein/PBS solution at varying concentrations in the linear range of the assay to provide a standard curve.
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    Secondary Antibody and Reporter Enzyme: Subsequently biotinylated Goat Anti-Human IgG Fc (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA) was diluted 1:500 in 1% (w/v) Casein/PBS solution and 30 μL added to the well.
    Anti-Human IgG
    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.18.21263605v1 on medRxiv