Cited by 84SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchImmune responses and vaccinationsImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

A booster dose enhances immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccine candidate ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in aged mice

Open access
Silva-Cayetano, Alyssa, Foster, William S., Innocentin, Silvia, Belij-Rammerstorfer, Sandra, Spencer, Alexandra J., Burton, Oliver T., Fra-Bidó, Sigrid, Le Lee, Jia +11 more·2021·Med

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The spread of SARS-CoV-2 has caused a worldwide pandemic that has affected almost every aspect of human life. The development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine could limit the morbidity and mortality caused by infection and may enable the relaxation of social-distancing measures. Age is one of the most significant risk factors for poor health outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it is desirable that any new vaccine candidates elicit a robust immune response in older adults. METHODS: Here, we use in-depth immunophenotyping to characterize the innate and adaptive immune response induced upon intramuscular administration of the adenoviral vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD-1222) COVID-19 vaccine candidate in mice. FINDINGS: T cells. and granzyme-B-producing CD8 effectors. Spike-specific IgG and IgM are generated from both the early extrafollicular antibody response and the T follicular helper cell-supported germinal center reaction, which is associated with the production of virus-neutralizing antibodies. A single dose of this vaccine generated a similar type of immune response in aged mice but of a reduced magnitude than in younger mice. We report that a second dose enhances the immune response to this vaccine in aged mice. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces both cellular and humoral immunity in adult and aged mice and suggests a prime-boost strategy is a rational approach to enhance immunogenicity in older persons. FUNDING: This study was supported by BBSRC, Lister institute of Preventative Medicine, EPSRC VaxHub, and Innovate UK.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.medj.2020.12.006

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Responses to the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (AZD-1222) vaccine were lower in older than in younger mice, and the difference was overcome by booster dosing.

    “These data reflect the finding that responses to the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (AZD-1222) vaccine were lower in older than in younger mice, and the difference was overcome by booster dosing 21 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silva-Cayetano, A., Foster, W. S., Innocentin, S., Belij-Rammerstorfer, S., Spencer, A. J., Burton, O. T., Fra-Bidó, S., Le Lee, J., Thakur, N., Conceicao, C., Wright, D., Barrett, J., Evans-Bailey, N., Noble, C., Bailey, D., Liston, A., Gilbert, S. C., Lambe, T., & Linterman, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Babraham Institute (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • The Pirbright Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Lambe, Teresa
  • Linterman, Michelle A.
Venue
Med
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
243-262.e8
ISSN
2666-6340 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3112962014
Cited by
84
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 23
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Med (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Innovate UK (971615)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/RO13756/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/B/000C0428, BBS/E/B/000C0427)
  • Babraham Institute
  • Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
  • Agency for Science, Technology and Research
  • European Molecular Biology Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, AZD1222, booster vaccination, immunosenescence, aged mice, SARS-CoV-2, adenovirus vector vaccine, T follicular helper cells, germinal center, virus-neutralizing antibodies, CD8+ T cells, granzyme B, humoral immunity, cell-mediated immunity, prime-boost strategy
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Animals, Humans, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review