13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Unadjuvanted intranasal spike vaccine elicits protective mucosal immunity against sarbecoviruses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has highlighted the need for vaccines that not only prevent disease but also prevent transmission. Parenteral vaccines induce robust systemic immunity but poor immunity at the respiratory mucosa. We developed a vaccine strategy that we call “prime and spike,” which leverages existing immunity generated by primary vaccination (prime) to elicit mucosal immune memory within the respiratory tract by using unadjuvanted intranasal spike boosters (spike). We show that prime and spike induces robust resident memory B and T cell responses, induces immunoglobulin A at the respiratory mucosa, boosts systemic immunity, and completely protects mice with partial immunity from lethal SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using divergent spike proteins, prime and spike enables the induction of cross-reactive immunity against sarbecoviruses.

          Abstract

          Prime and Spike passes the sniff test

          Nearly 2 years after COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, a combination of waning vaccine-induced immunity and unabated viral mutations have resulted in reduced vaccine effectiveness. Mao et al. developed an alternative vaccine-boosting strategy they call “prime and spike” in animal models of COVID-19. After primary vaccination with a messenger RNA vaccine (“prime”), animals received an intranasal dose of unadjuvanted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (“spike”). This approach resulted in robust cellular and antibody-based immunity in the mucosa that protected animals as strongly and durably as a parenteral boost while also blocking viral transmission better. Spike could be administered in a variety of formulations and, if derived from SARS-CoV-1, could offer strong cross-protection against both viruses. —STS

          Abstract

          An intranasal spike protein boost generates broadly protective anti-sarbecovirus mucosal immunity in animals.

          Abstract

          INTRODUCTION

          During the first year of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, multiple highly effective vaccines have been developed, using new technologies such as modified mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles and replication-deficient adenoviral vectors. Initial trials showed vaccine effectiveness >90% against symptomatic disease. Additional studies showed decreased infection rates of household contacts of vaccinated individuals, suggesting decreased rates of transmission. Unfortunately, waning immunity to vaccines and continued viral evolution with increasingly transmissible and immune-evasive variants have led to decreased vaccine effectiveness. Vaccines have also become much less effective at preventing transmission, which may be in part because of the poor induction of mucosal immunity within the respiratory tract.

          RATIONALE

          Although the goal of vaccination has been to prevent individual morbidity and mortality, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 throughout the pandemic has highlighted the need for vaccines that better prevent transmission. Parenteral vaccines induce robust systemic immunity that is protective against disease. However, they induce poor immunity within the upper respiratory mucosa, where viral transmission occurs. Preclinical studies of both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus have demonstrated that intranasal vaccination decreases viral shedding and transmission relative to parenteral vaccines. Despite these studies, there is only one currently approved respiratory mucosal vaccine, FluMist, which is a live cold-adapted influenza virus. Most current clinical trials of mucosally administered SARS-CoV-2 vaccines rely on either replication-deficient or attenuated viral vectors, the safety and efficacy of which have yet to be established. All of these strategies become less effective with the development of antivector immunity. Here, we instead leverage preexisting immunity to boost mucosal immunity by intranasally administering unadjuvanted spike protein or mRNA. This consequently avoids the use of viral vectors or adjuvants in the respiratory tract.

          RESULTS

          We describe the preclinical development of an alternative vaccine strategy that we term “prime and spike” (P&S), which uses existing immunity generated by primary vaccination (prime) to elicit mucosal immune memory within the respiratory tract by using unadjuvanted intranasal spike booster. P&S elicits robust mucosal cellular and humoral memory responses, including the establishment of tissue-resident memory CD8 + T cells, CD4 + T cells, and B cells. Additionally, we found robust induction of mucosal immunoglobulin A (IgA) and IgG. Intranasal boosters can be delivered through distinct vaccine formulations, ranging from unadjuvanted trimeric recombinant spike proteins to spike-encoding mRNA encapsulated by immunosilent poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polymers. We found that an intranasal unadjuvanted spike booster can be administered months out from primary immunization and offers systemic neutralizing antibody responses comparable with that of mRNA–lipid nanoparticle (LNP) boost. P&S shows durability, leading to protection from lethal SCV2 challenge for as long as 118 days from vaccination. P&S is protective in hamsters and is superior to mRNA-LNP prime-boost at blocking transmission. Last, by using a divergent spike antigen from SARS-CoV-1, we demonstrate that P&S can generate mucosal immunity to SCV1 while also boosting systemic and mucosal neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

          CONCLUSION

          SARS-CoV-2 will continue to evolve and become more immune evasive and transmissible. We will require boosting in human populations for the foreseeable future. The respiratory mucosa provides a formidable barrier against viral pathogens after P&S administration. Therefore, strengthening mucosal immunity through vaccination holds substantial promise for enhancing protection and mitigating transmission. As new variants emerge, it will be a vital tool in combating other respiratory pathogens and the next pandemic.

          A parenteral prime-unadjuvanted mucosal boost vaccine that elicits mucosal immunity against sarbecoviruses.

          P&S converts systemic immunity generated by primary vaccination into local immunity in the respiratory mucosa. P&S affords protection against disease development, respiratory viral replication, and contact transmission after SARS-CoV-2 (SCV2) infection. Intranasal boosting by using a divergent spike protein from SARS-CoV-1 (SCV1) induces mucosal immunity against diverse sarbecovirus clades.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses

            Over the past 20 years, several coronaviruses have crossed the species barrier into humans, causing outbreaks of severe, and often fatal, respiratory illness. Since SARS-CoV was first identified in animal markets, global viromics projects have discovered thousands of coronavirus sequences in diverse animals and geographic regions. Unfortunately, there are few tools available to functionally test these viruses for their ability to infect humans, which has severely hampered efforts to predict the next zoonotic viral outbreak. Here, we developed an approach to rapidly screen lineage B betacoronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV and the recent SARS-CoV-2, for receptor usage and their ability to infect cell types from different species. We show that host protease processing during viral entry is a significant barrier for several lineage B viruses and that bypassing this barrier allows several lineage B viruses to enter human cells through an unknown receptor. We also demonstrate how different lineage B viruses can recombine to gain entry into human cells, and confirm that human ACE2 is the receptor for the recently emerging SARS-CoV-2.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting

              Abstract Background As mass vaccination campaigns against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) commence worldwide, vaccine effectiveness needs to be assessed for a range of outcomes across diverse populations in a noncontrolled setting. In this study, data from Israel’s largest health care organization were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Methods All persons who were newly vaccinated during the period from December 20, 2020, to February 1, 2021, were matched to unvaccinated controls in a 1:1 ratio according to demographic and clinical characteristics. Study outcomes included documented infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), symptomatic Covid-19, Covid-19–related hospitalization, severe illness, and death. We estimated vaccine effectiveness for each outcome as one minus the risk ratio, using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Results Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95); for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) and 94% (95% CI, 87 to 98); for hospitalization, 74% (95% CI, 56 to 86) and 87% (95% CI, 55 to 100); and for severe disease, 62% (95% CI, 39 to 80) and 92% (95% CI, 75 to 100), respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72% (95% CI, 19 to 100) for days 14 through 20 after the first dose. Estimated effectiveness in specific subpopulations assessed for documented infection and symptomatic Covid-19 was consistent across age groups, with potentially slightly lower effectiveness in persons with multiple coexisting conditions. Conclusions This study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting suggests that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective for a wide range of Covid-19–related outcomes, a finding consistent with that of the randomized trial.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing - original draftRole: Writing - review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing - original draftRole: Writing - review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Visualization
                Role: InvestigationRole: Validation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: Resources
                Role: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing - review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing - original draftRole: Writing - review & editing
                Journal
                Science
                Science
                science
                Science (New York, N.y.)
                American Association for the Advancement of Science
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                25 November 2022
                25 November 2022
                : 378
                : 6622
                : eabo2523
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Department of Immunobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 2 ]Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 3 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 4 ]Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 5 ]Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 6 ]Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 7 ]Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 8 ]Department of Dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
                [ 9 ]Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD, USA.
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Email: benjamin.goldman-israelow@ 123456yale.edu (B.I.); akiko.iwasaki@ 123456yale.edu (A.I.)
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally to ths work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9251-8592
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-8246
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3180-0935
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3561-7495
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9666-2062
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1902-5876
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9447-0868
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2055-5885
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2163-549X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7824-9856
                Article
                abo2523
                10.1126/science.abo2523
                9798903
                36302057
                5e1ded5b-c9ed-4307-8135-135828615c3a
                Copyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 January 2022
                : 22 July 2022
                : 24 October 2022
                : 27 October 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: 1R01AI157488
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: NIAID T32AI007517
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: K08AI163493
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: NIAID T32AI007019
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: UG3 HL147352
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000011, Howard Hughes Medical Institute;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100016127, Fast Grants;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100019004, Mercatus Center, George Mason University;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                R-Articles
                Immunology
                Microbio
                Coronavirus
                Custom metadata
                6
                6

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article