ArticleNature communications2025
Quantifying the impact of a broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine in a future SARS-X pandemic.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A computational method to design broad-spectrum T cell-inducing vaccines applied to Betacoronaviruses.Cell reports methods · 2026Article
- Reverse genetics strategies for coronaviruses: platform construction and applications in vaccine development.Virus genes · 2026Review
- Trends in funding for coronavirus vaccine research and development: implications for preparedness against future coronavirus threats.NPJ vaccines · 2026Review
- mRNA delivery of mosaic-8 pan-sarbecovirus RBD vaccines elicits distinct antibody epitope signatures.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Confronting the known unknown: historical lessons and future strategies for Disease X.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- mRNA delivery of genetically encoded mosaic-8 pan-sarbecovirus RBD vaccines.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
COVID-19 has underscored the need for more timely access to vaccines during future pandemics. This has motivated development of broad-spectrum vaccines providing protection against entire viral families, which could be stockpiled and deployed rapidly following detection. Using mathematical modelling, we assess the utility of a broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine during a hypothetical SARS-X outbreak, for a range of implementation strategies including ring-vaccination, spatial-targeting and mass vaccination of high-risk groups. Broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine ring- or spatial strategies alone are insufficient to contain epidemics driven by a SARS-CoV-2-like virus, but when paired with rapid isolation and quarantine, can achieve containment of a SARS-CoV-1-like virus. Where suppression fails, broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine utilisation still reduces the effective reproduction number and slows epidemic growth - buying valuable time for health-system response and virus-specific vaccine development. Vaccination of high-risk populations with the broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine ahead of virus-specific vaccine availability could reduce mortality and enable shorter and less stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions to be imposed; results are sensitive to vaccine properties (e.g., efficacy), health system capabilities (e.g. rollout speed) and timeline to virus-specific vaccine availability. Our modelling suggests that broadly protective sarbecovirus vaccine delivery to those aged 60+ years could have averted 21-78 % of COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic's first year, depending on the size of the stockpile. Realising this potential impact will require investment in manufacturing, delivery capacity and equitable access ahead of future pandemics.
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.