Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34855916›Full record

ArticlePLoS pathogens2021

Reduced neutralisation of the Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern following vaccination.

Chris Davis, Nicola Logan, Grace Tyson, Richard Orton, William T Harvey, Jonathan S Perkins, Guy Mollett, Rachel M Blacow, COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium, Thomas P Peacock and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS pathogens, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

135 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Chris DavisMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Nicola LoganMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Grace TysonMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9496-5660
Richard OrtonMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3389-4325
William T HarveyMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9529-1127
Jonathan S PerkinsClinical Research Facility, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7448-471X
Guy MollettClinical Research Facility, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1613-4540
Rachel M BlacowClinical Research Facility, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0946-5539
COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium
Thomas P PeacockDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7077-2928
Wendy S BarclayDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter CherepanovThe Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0634-538X
Massimo PalmariniMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7007-4070
Pablo R MurciaMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4352-394X
Arvind H PatelMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4600-2047
David L RobertsonMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6338-0221
John HaughneyClinical Research Facility, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6809-6964
Emma C ThomsonMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1482-0889
Brian J WillettMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8912-3266
COVID-19 DeplOyed VaccinE (DOVE) Cohort Study investigators

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19026Medical Research Council MC_PC_19027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/10Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/12Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/9Medical Research Council MR/R024758/1Medical Research Council MR/W005611/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines are proving to be highly effective in controlling hospitalisation and deaths associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection but the emergence of viral variants with novel antigenic profiles threatens to diminish their efficacy. Assessment of the ability of sera from vaccine recipients to neutralise SARS-CoV-2 variants will inform the success of strategies for minimising COVID19 cases and the design of effective antigenic formulations. Here, we examine the sensitivity of variants of concern (VOCs) representative of the B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 (first associated with infections in India) and B.1.351 (first associated with infection in South Africa) lineages of SARS-CoV-2 to neutralisation by sera from individuals vaccinated with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccines. Across all vaccinated individuals, the spike glycoproteins from B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 conferred reductions in neutralisation of 4.31 and 5.11-fold respectively. The reduction seen with the B.1.617.2 lineage approached that conferred by the glycoprotein from B.1.351 (South African) variant (6.29-fold reduction) that is known to be associated with reduced vaccine efficacy. Neutralising antibody titres elicited by vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 were significantly higher than those elicited by vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. Fold decreases in the magnitude of neutralisation titre following two doses of BNT162b2, conferred reductions in titre of 7.77, 11.30 and 9.56-fold respectively to B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2 and B.1.351 pseudoviruses, the reduction in neutralisation of the delta variant B.1.617.2 surpassing that of B.1.351. Fold changes in those vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx1 were 0.69, 4.01 and 1.48 respectively. The accumulation of mutations in these VOCs, and others, demonstrate the quantifiable risk of antigenic drift and subsequent reduction in vaccine efficacy. Accordingly, booster vaccines based on updated variants are likely to be required over time to prevent productive infection. This study also suggests that two dose regimes of vaccine are required for maximal BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-induced immunity.

Indexed as

BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19Immunization, SecondaryVaccine EfficacyAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralAntigenic Drift and ShiftHEK293 CellsHumansSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBNT162 Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID34855916
PMCPMC8639073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.