ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
Decreased breadth of the antibody response to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 after repeated vaccination.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune responses after two inactivated COVID-19 vaccine doses, a heterologous third dose and subsequent boosting with bivalent mRNA in adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Antibody Avidity Maturation Following Booster Vaccination with an Intranasal Adenovirus Salnavac Vaccine.Vaccines · 2024Article
- NVX-CoV2373 induces humoral and cellular immune responses that are functionally comparable to vector and mRNA-based vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The durability of natural infection and vaccine-induced immunity against future infection by SARS-CoV-2.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Vaccine Type-, Age- and Past Infection-Dependence of the Humoral Response to SARS-CoV-2 Spike S Protein.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rapid development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 has raised the need to compare the capacity of different vaccines in terms of developing a protective humoral response. Previous studies have shown inconsistent results in this area, highlighting the importance of further research to evaluate the efficacy of different vaccines. Methods: This study utilized a highly sensitive and reliable flow cytometry method to measure the titers of IgG1 isotype antibodies in the blood of healthy volunteers after receiving one or two doses of various vaccines administered in Spain. The method was also used to simultaneously measure the reactivity of antibodies to the S protein of the original Wuhan strain and variants B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.617.1 (Kappa). Results: Significant differences were observed 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. Furthermore, a relative reduction in the reactivity of the sera with the Alpha, Delta, and Kappa variants, compared to the Wuhan strain, was observed after the second boosting immunization. Discussion: The findings of this study provide a comparison of different vaccines in terms of anti-S antibody generation and cast doubts on the convenience of repeated immunization with the same S protein sequence. The multiplexed capacity of the flow cytometry method utilized in this study allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of various vaccines in generating a protective humoral response. Future research could focus on the implications of these findings for the development of effective COVID-19 vaccination strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.