ArticleiScience2025
Comparison of immunogenicity and protection efficacy of self-amplifying and circular mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Article in iScience, 2025. 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.
- Engineered nanovaccines for prophylactic and therapeutic immunotherapy against cancer and infectious disease.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Supplementation of αKG along with TGFβ/HIF1α antagonist rescues lung fibrosis in mice with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- The research progress of gastric cancer vaccines: a narrative review.Translational cancer research · 2026Review
- Circular RNA as a New Vaccine Platform: Considerations, Challenges, and Perspectives.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in vaccine technology have positioned messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines as safe and reliable options for human use. Conventionally, mRNA vaccines were designed using linear or self-amplifying mRNA (SAM), the latter considered to be superior. Subsequent studies on Circular mRNA (Circ-RNA) vaccines proved their efficacy. Here, we compared the efficacy of SAM- and Circ-RNA vaccines using the SARS-CoV-2-RBD (receptor binding domain) antigen. Both SAM-RBD and Circ-RBD induced a comparable anti-RBD IgG titer and virus-neutralizing antibody titer. However, the latter induced a higher memory T cell response. The Circ-RBD vaccine is stable for 4 weeks at 4°C. A bivalent vaccine containing Circ-RBD of both delta and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants potently neutralized these viruses. These findings demonstrate Circ-RNA-RBD as an excellent vaccine candidate against COVID-19 and also provide a platform for developing bivalent Circ-RNA vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses with rapidly emerging variants.
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.