4.6 Article

Synthetic multiantigen MVA vaccine COH04S1 protects against SARS-CoV-2 in Syrian hamsters and non-human primates

期刊

NPJ VACCINES
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41541-022-00436-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health Service grants [U19 AI128913, CA111412, CA181045, CA107399]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that the COH04S1 vaccine provides effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 in animal models through different vaccination routes and dose regimens. It induces specific immune responses, including cross-neutralizing antibodies, and protects against symptoms and lung damage caused by viral challenge. Additionally, the vaccine also triggers strong immune responses and antiviral reactions in non-human primates.
Second-generation COVID-19 vaccines could contribute to establish protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants. We developed COH04S1, a synthetic multiantigen modified vaccinia Ankara-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine that co-expresses spike and nucleocapsid antigens. Here, we report COH04S1 vaccine efficacy in animal models. We demonstrate that intramuscular or intranasal vaccination of Syrian hamsters with COH04S1 induces robust Th1-biased antigen-specific humoral immunity and cross-neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and protects against weight loss, lower respiratory tract infection, and lung injury following intranasal SARS-CoV-2 challenge. Moreover, we demonstrate that single-dose or two-dose vaccination of non-human primates with COH04S1 induces robust antigen-specific binding antibodies, NAb, and Th1-biased T cells, protects against both upper and lower respiratory tract infection following intranasal/intratracheal SARS-CoV-2 challenge, and triggers potent post-challenge anamnestic antiviral responses. These results demonstrate COH04S1-mediated vaccine protection in animal models through different vaccination routes and dose regimens, complementing ongoing investigation of this multiantigen SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据