Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41612250›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026

Nucleocapsid protein enhances spike- and RBD-specific humoral and cellular immune responses in protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Stina Gröhn, Heini Lehto, Saana Soppela, Rauno A Naves, Mikael A Ritvos, Alina Iakubovskaia, Vili Lampinen, Iiris Mustonen, Sanniina Pakkala, Elizaveta Husu and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Stina GröhnVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-7233
Heini LehtoVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-3187-0663
Saana SoppelaVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-4572
Rauno A NavesDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7473-0637
Mikael A RitvosNordic SARS Response AB, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-1384-5629
Alina IakubovskaiaDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3373-1753
Vili LampinenVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2153-6149
Iiris MustonenVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4478-1773
Sanniina PakkalaVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Elizaveta HusuVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Laura KakkolaInstitute of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9271-4059
Ilkka JulkunenInstitute of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0165-2564
Pekka KolehmainenInstitute of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5997-8167
Arja PasternackDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6088-4245
Olli RitvosDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7017-6931
Minna M HankaniemiVirology and Vaccine Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland. minna.hankaniemi@tuni.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6463-1248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease but provide limited protection against infection and transmission, particularly as new variants emerge. Vaccines capable of inducing both systemic and mucosal immunity and robust T cell responses, may offer broader and more long-lasting protection. This study aimed to evaluate protein-based vaccine candidates incorporating SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and its receptor-binding domain (RBD), as well as nucleocapsid protein (N) antigens administered through different immunization schemes.

methodsMice were immunized three times at four-week intervals with vaccine formulations containing Fc-fused RBD proteins, S, and/or N proteins. Vaccines were administered intranasally, subcutaneously, or with subcutaneous or intramuscular priming followed by intranasal boosting. Branched polyethylenimine (BPEI) was used as a mucosal adjuvant, and Adjuvant system 04 (AS04) for intramuscular administration. Depending on the experiment, BPEI or AS04 was used for subcutaneous immunizations. Systemic antibody responses were assessed from serum samples and mucosal antibody responses from bronchoalveolar lavage samples by ELISA. Cellular responses were measured from splenocytes after antigen stimulation by FluoroSpot analysis of cytokine secretion.

resultsFc-fused RBD antigens elicited higher antibody responses than whole S protein. Inclusion of low amount of N protein enhanced RBD- and S-specific systemic and mucosal IgG and IgA responses, and significantly increased splenocyte IL-2 and IFN-γ secretion. Intranasal vaccination alone induced variable mucosal antibody responses, whereas intramuscular priming followed by intranasal boosting consistently produced higher systemic IgG levels, robust mucosal responses, and T cell activity. Neutralizing antibodies were negligible in intranasally primed groups but were detectable in most animals receiving intramuscular priming. Among all regimens, the combination of intramuscular priming with N-containing formulations generated the highest magnitude and breadth of humoral and cellular responses. All vaccine formulations were well tolerated with no adverse effects observed.

conclusionsProtein-based vaccines incorporating N together with Fc-fused RBD antigens significantly broaden and enhance immune responses in mice. Intramuscular priming followed by intranasal boosting proved superior to other regimens, inducing strong systemic, mucosal, and cellular immunity. These findings suggest that inclusion of conserved internal virus antigens and heterologous prime-boost strategies may improve durability and breadth of protection, supporting their development as next-generation COVID-19 vaccines.

Indexed as

Coronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunity, CellularPhosphoproteinsSARS-CoV-2Spike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusAdministration, IntranasalAnimalsAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralFemaleImmunity, HumoralInjections, IntramuscularMiceMice, Inbred BALB CAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus Nucleocapsid ProteinsCOVID-19 Vaccinesnucleocapsid phosphoprotein, SARS-CoV-2PhosphoproteinsProtein Subunit VaccinesSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2CoronavirusesFc-fused RBD proteinImmunogenicityIntranasal vaccinationNext-generation COVID-19 vaccinesNucleocapsid proteinProtein subunit vaccinesSARS-CoV-2 virus

Identifiers

PMID41612250
PMCPMC12924367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.