Abstract
Background While SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations were successful in decreasing COVID-19 caseloads, recent increases in SARS-CoV-2 infections have led to questions about duration and quality of the subsequent immune response. While numerous studies have been published on immune responses triggered by vaccination, these often focused on the initial peak response generated in specific population subgroups (e.g. healthcare workers or immunocompromised individuals) and have often only examined the effects of one or two different immunisation schemes.
Methods and Findings We analysed serum samples from participants of a large German seroprevalence study (MuSPAD) who had received all available vaccines and dose schedules (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, AZD1222, Ad26.CoV2S.2 or a combination of AZD1222 plus either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). Antibody titers against various SARS-CoV-2 antigens and ACE2 binding inhibition against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and the Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta variants of concern were analysed using a previously published multiplex immunoassay MULTICOV-AB and an ACE2-RBD competition assay. Among the different vaccines and their dosing regimens, homologous mRNA-based or heterologous prime-boost vaccination produced significantly higher antibody responses than vector-based homologous vaccination. Ad26.CoV2S.2 performance was significantly reduced, even compared to AZD1222, with 91.67% of samples being considered non-responsive forACE2 binding inhibition. mRNA-based vaccination induced a higher ratio of RBD- and S1-targeting antibodies than vector-based vaccination, which resulted in an increased proportion of S2-targeting antibodies. Previously infected individuals had a robust immune response once vaccinated, regardless of which vaccine they received. When examining antibody kinetics post-vaccination after homologous immunisation regimens, both titers and ACE2 binding inhibition peaked approximately 28 days post-vaccination and then decreased as time increased.
Conclusions As one of the first and largest population-based studies to examine vaccine responses for all currently available immunisation schemes in Germany, we found that homologous mRNA or heterologous vaccination elicited the highest immune responses. The high percentage of non-responders for Ad26.CoV2.S requires further investigation and suggests that a booster dose with an mRNA-based vaccine may be necessary. The high responses seen in recovered and vaccinated individuals could aid future dose allocation, should shortages arise for certain manufacturers. Given the role of RBD- and S1-specific antibodies in neutralising SARS-CoV-2, their relative over-representation after mRNA vaccination may explain why mRNA vaccines have an increased efficacy compared to vector-based formulations. Further investigation on these differences will be of particular interest for vaccine development and efficacy, especially for the next-generation of vector-based vaccines.
Competing Interest Statement
NSM was a speaker at Luminex user meetings in the past. The Natural and Medical Sciences Institute at the University of Tuebingen is involved in applied research projects as a fee for services with the Luminex Corporation. The other authors declare no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was financially supported by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres (grant number SO-96), the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement number 101003480 - CORESMA), intramural funds of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research and the State Ministry of Baden-Wuerttemberg for Economic Affairs, Labour and Tourism (grant numbers FKZ 3-4332.62-NMI-67 and FKZ 3-4332.62-NMI-68). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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 study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hannover Medical School (9086_BO_S_2020).
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is available upon request from the corresponding authors.
