Journal
FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.744887
Keywords
mucosal immunity; nasal epithelial lining fluid; immunoglobulin A; immunoglobulin G; serological immunity; mRNA vaccine; inactivated virus vaccine; SARS-CoV-2
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Comirnaty vaccine induces mucosal IgA and IgG responses with neutralizing activity, while CoronaVac vaccine primarily induces IgG responses in plasma, demonstrating differences in immune response between the two vaccine platforms.
Background Although the serological antibody responses induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are well characterized, little is known about their ability to elicit mucosal immunity. Objectives This study aims to examine and compare the mucosal and systemic responses of recipients of two different vaccination platforms: mRNA (Comirnaty) and inactivated virus (CoronaVac). Methods Serial blood and nasal epithelial lining fluid (NELF) samples were collected from the recipients of either Comirnaty or CoronaVac. The plasma and NELF immunoglobulins A and G (IgA and IgG) specific to SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein (S1) and their neutralization effects were quantified. Results Comirnaty induced nasal S1-specific immunoglobulin responses, which were evident as early as 14 +/- 2 days after the first dose. In 64% of the subjects, the neutralizing effects of NELF persisted for at least 50 days. Moreover, 85% of Comirnaty recipients exhibited S1-specific IgA and IgG responses in plasma by 14 +/- 2 days after the first dose. By 7 +/- 2 days after the booster, all plasma samples possessed S1-specific IgA and IgG responses and were neutralizing. The induction of S1-specific plasma antibodies by CoronaVac was IgG dominant, and 83% of the subjects possessed S1-specific IgG by 7 +/- 2 days after the booster, with neutralizing effects. Conclusion Comirnaty induces S1-specific IgA and IgG responses with neutralizing activity in the nasal mucosa; a similar response is not seen with CoronaVac. Clinical Implication The presence of a nasal response with mRNA vaccine may provide additional protection compared with inactivated virus vaccine. However, whether such widespread immunological response may produce inadvertent adverse effects in other tissues warrants further investigation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available