mRNA vaccination in people over 80 years of age induces strong humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 with cross neutralisation of P.1 Brazilian variant

  1. Helen Parry
  2. Gokhan Tut
  3. Rachel Bruton
  4. Sian Faustini
  5. Christine Stephens
  6. Philip Saunders
  7. Christopher Bentley
  8. Katherine Hilyard
  9. Kevin Brown
  10. Gayatri Amirthalingam
  11. Sue Charlton
  12. Stephanie Leung
  13. Emily Chiplin
  14. Naomi S Coombes
  15. Kevin R Bewley
  16. Elizabeth J Penn
  17. Cathy Rowe
  18. Ashley Otter
  19. Rosie Watts
  20. Silvia D'Arcangelo
  21. Bassam Hallis
  22. Andrew Makin
  23. Alex Richter
  24. Jianmin Zuo
  25. Paul Moss  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
  2. Quinton and Harborne PCN, United Kingdom
  3. Vaccine Taskforce, United Kingdom
  4. National infection Service, United Kingdom
  5. National Infection Service, United Kingdom
  6. Oxford Immunotec Ltd, United Kingdom

Abstract

Age is the major risk factor for mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection and older people have received priority consideration for COVID-19 vaccination. However vaccine responses are often suboptimal in this age group and few people over the age of 80 years were included in vaccine registration trials. We determined the serological and cellular response to spike protein in 100 people aged 80-96 years at 2 weeks after second vaccination with the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Antibody responses were seen in every donor with high titres in 98%. Spike-specific cellular immune responses were detectable in only 63% and correlated with humoral response. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection substantially increased antibody responses after one vaccine and antibody and cellular responses remained 28-fold and 3-fold higher respectively after dual vaccination. Post-vaccine sera mediated strong neutralisation of live Victoria infection and although neutralisation titres were reduced 14-fold against the P.1 variant first discovered in Brazil they remained largely effective. These data demonstrate that the mRNA vaccine platform delivers strong humoral immunity in people up to 96 years of age and retains broad efficacy against the P.1 Variant of Concern.

Data availability

All primary data are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4740081

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Helen Parry

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Gokhan Tut

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Rachel Bruton

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Sian Faustini

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Christine Stephens

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Philip Saunders

    Quinton and Harborne PCN, Ridgacre House Surgery, Quinton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Christopher Bentley

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Katherine Hilyard

    Vaccine Taskforce, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Kevin Brown

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, London NW9 5EQ, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Gayatri Amirthalingam

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Colindale, London NW9 5EQ, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Sue Charlton

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Stephanie Leung

    Research, National Infection Service, Salisbury, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8880-2977
  13. Emily Chiplin

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Naomi S Coombes

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Kevin R Bewley

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Elizabeth J Penn

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Cathy Rowe

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Ashley Otter

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Rosie Watts

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Silvia D'Arcangelo

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Bassam Hallis

    National infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 OJG, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Andrew Makin

    Oxford Immunotec Ltd, Abingdon, OX14 4SE, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Andrew Makin, is affiliated with Oxford Immunotec Ltd. The author has no financial interests to declare..
  23. Alex Richter

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Jianmin Zuo

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. Paul Moss

    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    p.moss@bham.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6895-1967

Funding

National Core Studies (Immunity programme)

  • Helen Parry
  • Gokhan Tut
  • Rachel Bruton
  • Sian Faustini
  • Christine Stephens
  • Paul Moss

UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UKRI/DHSC)

  • Helen Parry
  • Gokhan Tut
  • Rachel Bruton
  • Sian Faustini
  • Christine Stephens
  • Paul Moss

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent, and consent to publish, was obtained. The study was approved by UPH IRAS ethics 282164, Health Research Authority UK.

Copyright

© 2021, Parry et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,723
    views
  • 128
    downloads
  • 32
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Helen Parry
  2. Gokhan Tut
  3. Rachel Bruton
  4. Sian Faustini
  5. Christine Stephens
  6. Philip Saunders
  7. Christopher Bentley
  8. Katherine Hilyard
  9. Kevin Brown
  10. Gayatri Amirthalingam
  11. Sue Charlton
  12. Stephanie Leung
  13. Emily Chiplin
  14. Naomi S Coombes
  15. Kevin R Bewley
  16. Elizabeth J Penn
  17. Cathy Rowe
  18. Ashley Otter
  19. Rosie Watts
  20. Silvia D'Arcangelo
  21. Bassam Hallis
  22. Andrew Makin
  23. Alex Richter
  24. Jianmin Zuo
  25. Paul Moss
(2021)
mRNA vaccination in people over 80 years of age induces strong humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 with cross neutralisation of P.1 Brazilian variant
eLife 10:e69375.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69375

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69375

Further reading

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Han Kang Tee, Simon Crouzet ... Caroline Tapparel
    Research Article

    Because of high mutation rates, viruses constantly adapt to new environments. When propagated in cell lines, certain viruses acquire positively charged amino acids on their surface proteins, enabling them to utilize negatively charged heparan sulfate (HS) as an attachment receptor. In this study, we used enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) as model and demonstrated that unlike the parental MP4 variant, the cell-adapted strong HS-binder MP4-97R/167G does not require acidification for uncoating and releases its genome in the neutral or weakly acidic environment of early endosomes. We experimentally confirmed that this pH-independent entry is not associated with the use of HS as an attachment receptor but rather with compromised capsid stability. We then extended these findings to another HS-dependent strain. In summary, our data indicate that acquisition of capsid mutations conferring affinity for HS come together with decreased capsid stability and allow EV-A71 to enter the cell via a pH-independent pathway. This pH-independent entry mechanism boosts viral replication in cell lines but may prove deleterious in vivo, especially for enteric viruses crossing the acidic gastric environment before reaching their primary replication site, the intestine. Our study thus provides new insight into the mechanisms underlying the in vivo attenuation of HS-binding EV-A71 strains. Not only are these viruses hindered in tissues rich in HS due to viral trapping, as generally accepted, but our research reveals that their diminished capsid stability further contributes to attenuation in vivo. This underscores the complex relationship between HS-binding, capsid stability, and viral fitness, where increased replication in cell lines coincides with attenuation in harsh in vivo environments like the gastrointestinal tract.

    1. Medicine
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Berit Siedentop, Viacheslav N Kachalov ... Sebastian Bonhoeffer
    Research Article

    Background:

    Under which conditions antibiotic combination therapy decelerates rather than accelerates resistance evolution is not well understood. We examined the effect of combining antibiotics on within-patient resistance development across various bacterial pathogens and antibiotics.

    Methods:

    We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PubMed for (quasi)-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to 24 November 2022. Trials comparing antibiotic treatments with different numbers of antibiotics were included. Patients were considered to have acquired resistance if, at the follow-up culture, a resistant bacterium (as defined by the study authors) was detected that had not been present in the baseline culture. We combined results using a random effects model and performed meta-regression and stratified analyses. The trials’ risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool.

    Results:

    42 trials were eligible and 29, including 5054 patients, qualified for statistical analysis. In most trials, resistance development was not the primary outcome and studies lacked power. The combined odds ratio for the acquisition of resistance comparing the group with the higher number of antibiotics with the comparison group was 1.23 (95% CI 0.68–2.25), with substantial between-study heterogeneity (I2=77%). We identified tentative evidence for potential beneficial or detrimental effects of antibiotic combination therapy for specific pathogens or medical conditions.

    Conclusions:

    The evidence for combining a higher number of antibiotics compared to fewer from RCTs is scarce and overall compatible with both benefit or harm. Trials powered to detect differences in resistance development or well-designed observational studies are required to clarify the impact of combination therapy on resistance.

    Funding:

    Support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 310030B_176401 (SB, BS, CW), grant 32FP30-174281 (ME), grant 324730_207957 (RDK)) and from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, cooperative agreement AI069924 (ME)) is gratefully acknowledged.