RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 DECREASED BREADTH OF THE ANTIBODY RESPONSE TO THE SPIKE PROTEIN OF SARS-CoV-2 AFTER REPEATED VACCINATION
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.12.21261952
DO 10.1101/2021.08.12.21261952
A1 Horndler, Lydia
A1 Delgado, Pilar
A1 Romero-Pinedo, Salvador
A1 Quesada, Marina
A1 Balabanov, Ivaylo
A1 Laguna-Goya, Rocío
A1 Almendro-Vázquez, Patricia
A1 Llamas, Miguel A.
A1 Fresno, Manuel
A1 Paz-Artal, Estela
A1 van Santen, Hisse M.
A1 Álvarez, Stela
A1 Olmo, Asunción
A1 Alarcón, Balbino
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/11/2021.08.12.21261952.abstract
AB The rapid development of vaccines to prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19 makes necessary to compare the capacity of the different vaccines in terms of development of a protective humoral response. Here, we have used a highly sensitive and reliable flow cytometry method to measure the titers of antibodies of the IgG1 isotype in blood of healthy volunteers after receiving one or two doses of the vaccines being administered in Spain. We took advantage of the multiplexed capacity of the method to measure simultaneously the reactivity of antibodies with the S protein of the original strain Wuhan and the variants B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.617.1 (Kappa). We found significant differences in the titer of anti-S antibodies produced after a first dose of the vaccines ChAdOx1 nCov-19/AstraZeneca, mRNA-1273/Moderna, BNT162b2/Pfizer-BioNTech and Ad26.COV.S/Janssen. Most important, we found a relative reduction in the reactivity of the sera with the Alpha, Delta and Kappa variants, versus the Wuhan one, after the second boosting immunization. These data allow to make a comparison of different vaccines in terms of anti-S antibody generation and cast doubts about the convenience of repeatedly immunizing with the same S protein sequence.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have issued a patent application owned by CSICFunding StatementNo external funding has been received by the institutionAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:-Autonoma University Research Ethics Committee (no. #2352). -Hospital Princesa Research Ethics Committee (no. #4070).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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data is provided in Table 1 of the manuscript and no deposit in external repositories is required