Abstract
As COVID-19 transitions into endemicity and vaccines are annually updated to circulating SARS-CoV-2 lineages such as JN.1, exposure intervals and immune imprinting become critical considerations for vaccination strategy. Imprinting by the ancestral spike protein has been observed with the bivalent Wuhan-Hu-1/BA.4-5 vaccine and its persistence can be further evaluated in the context of the more recent XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine. We assessed antibody responses in individuals who received three to four doses of Wuhan-Hu-1, one dose of bivalent Wuhan-Hu-1/BA.4-5, and one dose of XBB.1.5 vaccine (bivalent recipients). We compared these to individuals who received three to four doses of Wuhan-Hu-1 and one dose of XBB.1.5 vaccine without prior bivalent vaccination (bivalent non-recipients). Before XBB.1.5 vaccination, bivalent non-recipients demonstrated decreased breadth and potency of neutralizing antibodies compared to recipients, but at post-vaccination exhibited greater boosting of neutralizing antibodies against XBB.1.5 (18.4X versus 6.2X), EG.5.1 (30.9X versus 7.0X), and JN.1 (9.2X versus 3.7X) variants with trends toward higher neutralizing titers and comparable variant cross-neutralization. Increased boosting in non-recipients were similarly observed for IgA and total IgG/A/M isotypes binding the spike receptor-binding domain but not IgG nor IgM. Bivalent non-recipients had longer intervals between exposures, which has been reported to enhance antibody boosting; however, bivalent receipt and interval were tightly linked variables, preventing the isolation of individual contributions to boosting. Nonetheless, significant “back-boosting” of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 titers upon XBB.1.5 vaccination in both participant groups indicate that immune imprinting continues to affect contemporary vaccines. Altogether, our findings highlight imprinting and exposure intervals as important phenomena underlying variant-adapted COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded in part by National Institutes of Health (grant no. R01AI141549 to F.G.T.).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos