ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
A head-to-head comparison of humoral and cellular immune responses of five COVID-19 vaccines in adults in China.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surrogate virus neutralization test as a scalable and reliable tool for immune surveillance in booster-vaccinated populations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Emergence of a Highly Virulent Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV) G2c Subtype in China: Isolation, Genetic and Pathogenic Characterization, and Cross-Neutralizing Antibody Response.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Advantages of Broad-Spectrum Influenza mRNA Vaccines and Their Impact on Pulmonary Influenza.Vaccines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Various COVID-19 vaccine trials have shown that vaccines can successfully prevent symptomatic cases of COVID-19 and death. Head-to-head comparisons help to better understand the immune response characteristics of different COVID-19 vaccines in humans. Methods: We randomly selected 20 participants from each of five ongoing Phase II trials of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, SARS-CoV 2-specific immune responses to DNA vaccine (INO-4800), mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2), Adenovirus-vectored vaccine (CONVIDECIA), Protein subunit vaccine (Recombinant COVID- 19 Vaccine (Sf9 Cells)), Inactivated Vaccine (KCONVAC) were examined longitudinally in healthy adults between Jan 15, 2021 and July 5, 2021 for 6 months. RBD-IgG titres were detected by ELISA, neutralising antibody titer were detected by pseudoviral neutralization and immune cell response were detected by flow cytometry. Results: At the first visit (V1), 100% of individuals who received the BNT162b2, CONVIDECIA, or KCONVAC vaccines experienced seroconversion of neutralizing and binding antibodies in the serum. Except for the Recombinant COVID-19 Vaccine (Sf9 Cells) vaccine having the highest neutralizing antibody GMT at the second visit (although there was no statistically significant difference in geometric mean titers between V1 and V2), the rest of the vaccines had the highest levels of binding antibodies and neutralizing antibodies at V1. The neutralizing antibodies GMT of all vaccines showed a significant decrease at V3 compared to V1. The neutralizing antibody GMT against the omicron variant of all vaccines at V1 showed a significant decrease compared to the wild strain. We observed statistically significant differences in Tcm cells and RBD-specific memory B cells among various vaccines. Discussion: BNT162b2 (mRNA vaccine) exhibits the highest antibody levels among the five vaccines evaluated, regardless of whether the target is the wild-type virus or its variants. However, its cellular immune response may be weaker compared to CONVIDECIA (adenovirus type 5 vector vaccine).
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.