The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 36 of the 49 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BNT162b2, a nucleoside-modified mRNA formulated in lipid nanoparticles that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S) stabilized in its prefusion conformation, has demonstrated 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 1. Here we extend a previous phase-I/II trial report 2 by presenting data on the immune response induced by BNT162b2 prime-boost vaccination from an additional phase-I/II trial in healthy adults (18-55 years old). BNT162b2 elicited strong antibody responses: at one week after the boost, SARS-CoV-2 serum geometric mean 50% neutralizing titres were up to 3.3-fold above those observed in samples from individuals who had recovered from COVID-19. Sera elicited by BNT162b2 neutralized 22 pseudoviruses bearing the S of different SARS-CoV-2 variants. Most participants had a strong response of IFNγ+ or IL-2+ CD8+ and CD4+ T helper type 1 cells, which was detectable throughout the full observation period of nine weeks following the boost. Using peptide-MHC multimer technology, we identified several BNT162b2-induced epitopes that were presented by frequent MHC alleles and conserved in mutant strains. One week after the boost, epitope-specific CD8+ T cells of the early-differentiated effector-memory phenotype comprised 0.02-2.92% of total circulating CD8+ T cells and were detectable (0.01-0.28%) eight weeks later. In summary, BNT162b2 elicits an adaptive humoral and poly-specific cellular immune response against epitopes that are conserved in a broad range of variants, at well-tolerated doses.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
89 Own result · 21 Own method · 12 Partly supported · 6 Own interpretation · 5 Sources not found · 4 Supported · 4 Couldn’t confirm · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“BNT162b2 encodes full-length SARS-CoV-2 S stabilized in the prefusion conformation 18 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Vogel, A. B. et al. BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2. Nature 592, 283–289 (2021). source
The 'Construct design and analysis of expressed antigen' section states directly that BNT162b2 RNA encodes full-length spike stabilized in the prefusion conformation by substitutions at residues 986 and 987. The 'Cell culture' section identifies those substitutions as K986P and V987P. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In the phase-I/II trial in the USA (NCT04368728), immunization with BNT162b2 at dose levels of up to 30 μg was associated with generally mild-to-moderate local reactions at the injection site as well as systemic events, such as fatigue, headache and myalgia 2 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Introduction identifies the US trial as NCT04368728 and reports BNT162b2 doses through 30 µg. The Local reactions section describes a pattern similar to mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions, while the Systemic events section reports fatigue, headache and muscle pain among BNT162b2 recipients. Severe systemic events occurred in small numbers of younger recipients, consistent with the claim’s 'generally' qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“BNT162b2 was selected as pivotal candidate on the basis of the totality of data obtained in the two phase-I/II trials and challenge studies in non-human primates 2,18 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes German and US clinical studies, and the Discussion says the clinical data guided the decision to advance BNT162b2 to the pivotal Phase 2/3 evaluation. Our copy does not say that non-human-primate challenge studies formed part of that decision, so the stated basis for selection is only partly supported. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [18] Vogel, A. B. et al. BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2. Nature 592, 283–289 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not available) says BNT162b2 was selected for further clinical testing largely because it was better tolerated than BNT162b1 while showing comparable immunogenicity in clinical trials, and because its full-length spike offered broader T-cell epitopes. The paper reports macaque challenge studies, but does not say their results were a basis for that selection or characterize the decision as based on the totality of data from two phase-I/II trials. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The USA_WA1/2020 strain S is identical in sequence to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 S (Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [42] Berger Rentsch, M. & Zimmer, G. A vesicular stomatitis virus replicon-based bioassay for the rapid and sensitive determination of multi-species type I interferon. PLoS ONE 6, e25858 (2011). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Generation of the VSV*ΔG(Luc) replicon” (page unavailable), describes a vesicular stomatitis virus replicon, not SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Searches for USA_WA1/2020, Wuhan-Hu-1, and spike-protein sequence identity found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.79)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Together with recent reports of the preserved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 with key S mutations found in the B.1.1.7 and the B.1.351lineage 39,40 , and neutralization of pseudovirus bearing the full set of mutations of B.1.1.7 S 41 , our data indicate broad BNT162b2-elicited immune recognition 2,13,14 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [39] Muik, A. et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 pseudovirus by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited human sera. Science 371, 1152–1153 (2021). source
The paper’s study text (indexed under Abstract; page not given) reports testing BNT162b2-recipient sera against pseudovirus bearing the lineage B.1.1.7 spike and finding largely preserved neutralization. This supports the specific claim attached to citation 41; the sentence’s references to B.1.351 and its broader conclusion are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Could not verifycites [40] Xie, X. et al. An infectious cDNA clone of SARS-CoV-2. Cell Host Microbe 27, 841–848 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results describe a SARS-CoV-2 infectious clone and mNeonGreen reporter virus, while the Introduction discusses their potential use in vaccine development. Our copy does not address BNT162b2-elicited immune recognition or neutralization of B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 mutations (searched: BNT162b2, variant neutralization, and neutralizing antibodies). (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Could not verifycites [41] Muruato, A. E. et al. A high-throughput neutralizing antibody assay for COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccine evaluation. Nat. Commun. 11, 4059 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results describe neutralization testing with COVID-19 patient sera, and the Discussion describes the assay’s use in vaccine trials. Our copy does not report BNT162b2-elicited immune recognition; searches for BNT162b2 and the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 mutations found no supporting passage. The variant-neutralization reports in the citing sentence are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Immunogenicity section reports BNT162b2-elicited antigen-binding and neutralizing responses, supporting immune recognition of the virus tested. It does not establish broad recognition across spike variants: the assay used the USA_WA1/2020 strain, and the Discussion says BNT162b2 cellular responses were still being studied. The variant-neutralization reports in the citing sentence have separate citations, not this one. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [13] Mulligan, M. J. et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature 586, 589–593 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (p. 5) reports substantial SARS-CoV-2 neutralization after vaccination with BNT162b1, supporting the general point that vaccination elicited an immune response. It does not establish broad BNT162b2-elicited recognition: the study tested a different vaccine candidate, and its Methods describe an assay using the USA_WA1/2020 strain. The variant-neutralization reports in the citing sentence are attached to other citations (39–41), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [14] Sahin, U. et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 586, 594–599 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Article section reports that BNT162b1 immune sera neutralized all 17 spike-variant pseudoviruses tested, supporting the general point that vaccination elicited broad recognition. This paper studied BNT162b1, however, not BNT162b2-elicited recognition; the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 neutralization reports are cited separately in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Phase-III trial data 1 and real-world data [3][4][5] show that a single 30-μg dose of BNT162b2, although associated with low neutralizing antibody titres, confers partial disease protection.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] Polack, F. P. et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2603–2615 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Efficacy) report 52% efficacy against Covid-19 between the first and second 30-μg doses, supporting partial protection after the first dose. The Discussion cautions that the trial was not designed to assess a single-dose regimen. This paper does not report low neutralizing antibody titres after one dose; the cited real-world data are attributed to other references in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites [3][4][5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“T cell recognition of epitopes spread across the entire length of S was one of the reasons to favour BNT162b2 over BNT162b1 14 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] Sahin, U. et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 586, 594–599 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Article section (page unavailable) says BNT162b2 encodes the full spike protein and was selected to advance, but gives its more favourable systemic tolerability as the reason. It does not report T-cell recognition of epitopes across the spike as a reason; the same section says epitope diversity was not analysed in this study. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The antigen-encoding RNA contains sequence elements that increase RNA stability and translation efficiency in human dendritic cells 15,16 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > mRNA vaccine manufacturing
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] Holtkamp, S. et al. Modification of antigen-encoding RNA increases stability, translational efficacy, and T-cell stimulatory capacity of dendritic cells. Blood 108, 4009–4017 (2006). source
The section on combining an optimal poly(A) tail and 3′ UTR reports that these sequence features improved RNA stability and translational efficiency in dendritic cells. The paper also identifies the cells studied as human dendritic cells. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked yetcites [16] Orlandini von Niessen, A. G. et al. Improving mRNA-based therapeutic gene delivery by expression-augmenting 3′ UTRs identified by cellular library screening. Mol. Ther. 27, 824–836 (2019). source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On day 29, S1-binding IgG GMCs showed a strong booster response that ranged from 691 to 8,279 U ml -1 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants immunized with 30 μg BNT162b2 remained well above a GMT of 40 throughout the entire follow-up period (until day 85) (Extended Data Fig. 4b).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 56
- Probably not a substantial claim. 47
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Robust concentrations of S1-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing titres against a SARS-CoV-2 strain with the wild-type (Wuhan-Hu-1) S sequence were elicited.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Immunogenicity section (page unavailable) reports boosted antigen-binding IgG and neutralizing responses in the US trial; Figure 4 identifies the IgG measure as S1-binding. The methods identify the neutralization-test strain as USA_WA1/2020, but our copy does not establish that it had the wild-type Wuhan-Hu-1 S sequence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Both of the candidates are pharmacologically optimized 15,16 , N 1 -methylpseudouridine nucleoside-modified mRNAs 17 that are administered intramuscularly in a prime-boost regimen 21”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] Holtkamp, S. et al. Modification of antigen-encoding RNA increases stability, translational efficacy, and T-cell stimulatory capacity of dendritic cells. Blood 108, 4009–4017 (2006). source
This citation is attached to “pharmacologically optimized,” not to the later claims about nucleoside modification or administration. The Discussion reports that optimizing structural features of antigen-encoding RNA improved its stability, expression, and T-cell stimulatory capacity. The paper does not identify BNT162b1 or BNT162b2, but it supports the optimization point for which it is cited. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [16] Orlandini von Niessen, A. G. et al. Improving mRNA-based therapeutic gene delivery by expression-augmenting 3′ UTRs identified by cellular library screening. Mol. Ther. 27, 824–836 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Results describe 3′ UTRs that improve therapeutic mRNA expression and stability, supporting the pharmacological-optimization point attached to this citation. The paper does not identify BNT162b1 or BNT162b2 or establish that either candidate uses the optimization studied here. The nucleoside modification and intramuscular prime-boost regimen are attached to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [17] Karikó, K. et al. Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability. Mol. Ther. 16, 1833–1840 (2008). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Materials and Methods describe pseudouridine-modified mRNA, and the Results report improved translation. They do not identify or test N1-methylpseudouridine, the specific modification attributed to this source by citation 17. The vaccine identities and prime-boost regimen are attached to other citations in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Taylor, D. N. et al. Development of VAX128, a recombinant hemagglutinin (HA) influenza-flagellin fusion vaccine with improved safety and immune response. Vaccine 30, 5761–5769 (2012). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The vaccine showed 95% efficacy for protection against COVID-19 in a phase-II/III trial 1 and emerging real-world data confirm that BNT162b2 is highly effective in preventing COVID-19 and hospitalization and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection [3][4][5] .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Polack, F. P. et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2603–2615 (2020). source
The cited paper supports the first clause, to which citation 1 is attached. Its Abstract Results report 95% efficacy against Covid-19, and the Abstract Conclusions identify the findings as coming from the phase 2/3 part of the trial. The separate real-world claim is attached to citations [3][4][5], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites [3][4][5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Geometric mean 50% neutralizing titres (GMTs) of sera drawn from younger (18-55 years) and older (65-85 years) adults seven days after the booster dose of 30 μg BNT162b2 were 3.8-fold and 1.6-fold, respectively, the GMT of samples from individuals who had recovered from COVID-19.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Immunogenicity section reports that, seven days after dose 2 of 30 µg BNT162b1 or BNT162b2, neutralizing GMTs were 2.8–3.8 times the convalescent-panel GMT in younger adults and 1.1–1.6 times it in older adults. Its reported older-to-younger ratios identify the 3.8-fold and 1.6-fold values as the BNT162b2 results. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“mRNA production and lipid nanoparticle formulation are fast and highly scalable, which renders this technology suitable for the rapid development and supply of vaccines during pandemic scenarios 11,12 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W. & Weissman, D. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 261–279 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Good manufacturing practice production section says mRNA can be produced rapidly in a small facility and is suitable for rapid response to emerging infectious diseases; the Abstract describes its manufacturing as potentially scalable. The Progress in mRNA vaccine delivery section identifies lipid nanoparticles as commonly used delivery tools, but the copy does not establish that their formulation is fast and highly scalable. The GMP section also notes that some production components were available only at limited scale, so rapid pandemic-scale supply is not established. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Maruggi, G., Zhang, C., Li, J., Ulmer, J. B. & Yu, D. mRNA as a transformative technology for vaccine development to control infectious diseases. Mol. Ther. 27, 757–772 (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“BNT162b2 is based on lipid-nanoparticle-formulated mRNA vaccine technology, which delivers precise genetic information of the immunogen to antigen-presenting cells and elicits potent immune responses 7 .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] Pardi, N. et al. Nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines induce potent T follicular helper and germinal center B cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 215, 1571–1588 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results describe lipid-nanoparticle-formulated mRNA producing protein after delivery in mice, and the Discussion reports strong immune responses in mice and rhesus macaques. The Results identify skin antigen-presenting cells as a rationale for the injection site, but do not establish delivery specifically to those cells. The paper studies the vaccine platform, not BNT162b2, so it does not verify the product-specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As reported for the phase-I/II trial in the USA 2 , prime-boost vaccination with 10 to 30 μg of BNT162b2 elicited GMTs of sera that-after an initial decline-remained stable for the entire follow-up of nine weeks after the booster dose, in the range of or higher than GMTs in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Although SARS-CoV-2 S-derived CD8 + T cell epitopes after natural infection have previously been published (including the immunodominant HLA-A*0201-restricted peptide YLQPRTFLL that is also identified in this Article) 37,38 , to our knowledge this is the first report of epitopes recognized by vaccine-induced T cells.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [37] Xie, X. et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 spike 69/70 deletion, E484K and N501Y variants by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera. Nat. Med. 27, 620–621 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Could not verifycites [38] O’Toole, Á. et al. Tracking the international spread of SARS-CoV-2 lineages B.1.1.7 and B.1.351/501Y–V2, https://virological.org/t/tracking-the-international-spread-of-sars-cov-2-lineages-b-1–1-7-and-b-1–351–501y-v2/592 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“To enable the comparison of vaccine-induced serum neutralizing titres to those previously reported for BioNTech-Pfizer RNA vaccines for COVID-19, sera were analysed as previously described 2,13,14 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Immunogenicity section (page unavailable) describes the serum neutralization assay used for BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 and defines how 50% neutralization titers were measured. This supports citing the paper as a prior description of the analysis used for comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [13] Mulligan, M. J. et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature 586, 589–593 (2020). source
The Methods section describes the serum neutralization assay used to calculate SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers, including serum dilution, incubation with reporter virus, and calculation of the 50% neutralization titer. It therefore supports citing this paper as a previously described method for analyzing sera; the aim of comparing results is the citing authors’ own framing. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [14] Sahin, U. et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 586, 594–599 (2020). source
The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay section describes how the authors analyzed sera and calculated 50% neutralization titres. The vaccine-induced antibody responses section reports the resulting titres for the BioNTech-Pfizer BNT162b1 vaccine. This supports citing the paper as a previously reported method and set of titres for comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“To enable the comparison of vaccine-induced S1-and RBD-binding IgG responses to previously reported data on the BioNTech-Pfizer RNA vaccines for COVID-19, sera were analysed as previously described 2,13,14 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > S1-and RBD-binding IgG assay
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Immunogenicity methods describe measuring vaccine-induced S1- and RBD-binding IgG with direct Luminex immunoassays. The Statistical Analysis section also reports analyses of those binding-IgG concentrations, making this paper an appropriate citation for the previously reported measurements. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [13] Mulligan, M. J. et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature 586, 589–593 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods describe how vaccine-induced RBD-binding IgG was measured in sera, and Figure 4 reports those responses. Our copy does not describe an S1-binding IgG assay, so this source supports the RBD part of the cited method but not the S1 part. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [14] Sahin, U. et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 586, 594–599 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The RBD-binding IgG assay section describes how the paper analysed participant sera for RBD-binding IgG, supporting the citation as a previously described method. The passages found do not describe an S1-binding IgG assay, so this source alone does not support that part of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“GMTs in subgroups of the donors were as follows: symptomatic infections, 90 (n = 35); asymptomatic infections, 156 (n = 3); hospitalized, 618 (n = 1).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Human convalescent serum and PBMC panel
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Immunogenicity section (page not provided) reports neutralizing GMTs of 90 for symptomatic donors (n=35), 156 for asymptomatic donors (n=3), and 618 for a hospitalized donor (n=1). These match the attributed figures. (LLM, conf=0.95)
- Partly supportedcites [13] Mulligan, M. J. et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature 586, 589–593 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section describes 38 convalescent serum donors, including 35 who had symptomatic infections and one who had been hospitalized; the remaining three were asymptomatic. The Immunogenicity section reports a neutralizing GMT of 94 for the panel as a whole, but our copy does not report subgroup GMTs of 90, 156, or 618. Page numbers are not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [14] Sahin, U. et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature 586, 594–599 (2020). source
The “Human convalescent sera and PBMC panel” section reports neutralizing GMTs of 90 for symptomatic donors (n = 35), 156 for asymptomatic donors (n = 3), and 618 for a hospitalized donor (n = 1). These values and subgroup sizes match the claim exactly. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plainn = 38- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“pMHC complexes were refolded with the easYmer technology (easYmer kit, ImmuneAware Aps), and complex formation was validated in a bead-based flow cytometry assay according to the manufacturer's instructions 49,50 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > pMHC multimer staining by flow cytometry
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] Hadrup, S. R. et al. Parallel detection of antigen-specific T-cell responses by multidimensional encoding of MHC multimers. Nat. Methods 6, 520–526 (2009). source
- Could not verifycites [50] Katoh, K., Rozewicki, J. & Yamada, K. D. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 1160–1166 (2019). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited paper’s “MSA of large data” section discusses MAFFT sequence-alignment methods, not pMHC complex formation. Searches for bead-based flow cytometry and easYmer refolding found no passage addressing the claimed validation; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Two variants had either eight (D80A/D215G/Δ242-244/ K417N/E484K/N501Y/D614G/A701V) or ten mutations (L18F/D80A/ D215G/R246I/Δ242-244/K417N/E484K/N501Y/D614G/A701V) found in S of the B.1.351lineage (also referred to as 20C/501Y.V2) 40 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > VSV-SARS-CoV-2 S pseudovirus neutralization assay for multiple-site mutations
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [40] Xie, X. et al. An infectious cDNA clone of SARS-CoV-2. Cell Host Microbe 27, 841–848 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion describes an infectious SARS-CoV-2 clone and proposes using it to study future spike mutations; the Methods describe three silent marker mutations. Searches for B.1.351, pseudovirus variants, and the listed spike mutations found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed eight- or ten-mutation variants. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common systemic adverse events were fatigue and headache, and only two participants reported mild fever (Extended Data Fig. 2b, Extended Data Table 3b).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the booster dose (day 29), GMTs increased substantially to 169, 195 or 312 in participants immunized with 10 μg, 20 μg or 30 μg BNT162b2, respectively, but increased only minimally in participants immunized with 1 μg BNT162b2 (GMT of 25).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At Article day 85, GMTs ranged from 120 to 181, and were 1.3-to 1.9-fold those of individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 (GMT of 94).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On day 22, geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of S1-binding IgG had increased in all dose cohorts and were in the range of 49 to 1,161 U ml -1 (Extended Data Fig. 4a).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transient chills were more common after the boost, were dose-dependent and were occasionally severe.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Local reactions (predominantly pain at the injection site) were mild-to-moderate (grades 1 and 2) and of similar frequency and severity after the priming and booster doses (Extended Data Fig. 2a, Extended Data Table 3a).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reactions had their onset within 24 h of immunization, peaked on the day after immunization and mostly resolved within 2 or 3 days, and either did not require treatment or could be managed with simple measures (such as paracetamol).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the BNT162b2-immune sera that we tested neutralized all the pseudoviruses, and no pseudovirus escaped neutralization.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced antibody response
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most participants had a strong response of IFNγ + or IL-2 + CD8 + and CD4 + T helper type 1 cells, which was detectable throughout the full observation period of nine weeks following the boost.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed no related serious adverse events, no grade-4 reactions and no withdrawals owing to related adverse events.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One week after the boost, epitope-specific CD8 + T cells of the early-differentiated effector-memory phenotype comprised 0.02-2.92% of total circulating CD8 + T cells and were detectable (0.01-0.28%) eight weeks later.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We observed a mild drop in blood lymphocyte counts and an increase in C-reactive protein, which are known pharmacodynamic markers of mRNA vaccines [19][20][21][22][23] ; both of these were transient, dose-dependent and within, or close to, laboratory-normal levels (Extended Data Fig. 3).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19][20][21][22][23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Muscle pain and joint pain were also more common after the boost and showed dose-dependent severity.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Safety and tolerability
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining three participants had de novo responses against S pool 1 and low numbers of pre-existing S-pool-2-reactive CD4 + T cells.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Six out of these seven participants had a concurrent de novo response to S pool 1, which did not differ in strength from those responses that we observed in individuals without pre-existing responses to S pool 2 (Extended Data Fig. 5e).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fraction of IFNγ and IL-2 cytokine-producing T cells induced by the vaccine strongly increased by day 29, declined until day 43 and stabilized towards day 85 (Fig. 3b, Extended Data Fig. 7e).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Polarization of T cell responses
boosteddirectn = 41- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of vaccine-induced S-specific CD8 + T cell responses that we detected in 34 of 37 participants (91.9%) were strong, with magnitudes comparable to individual memory responses against CMV, EBV and influenza virus (Fig. 2a, b, Extended Data Fig. 5a-c).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plaindirectn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On day 85, epitope-specific CD8 + T cells were unchanged in participants 1 and 2 and differentiated towards CD45RA re-expressing cells with CD27 and CD28 co-expression in participant 3”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Specificity and phenotype of CD8 + T cells
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the B.1.1.298lineage, which has not demonstrated sustained human-to-human transmission, only one of the eight CD8 + T cell epitopes showed a single-point mutation (which may or may not affect its binding to the respective MHC molecule).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These were directed against both (22 participants) or one of the S pools (S pool 1 in 10 participants and S pool 2 in 2 participants)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plaindirectn = 22- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magnitude of the T cell responses varied between individuals and, above a dose level of 1 μg, was independent of dose level.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All evaluable participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 mounted de novo S-specific CD4 + T cell responses, and almost 90% of participants mounted de novo CD8 + T cell responses.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified several epitopes for each participant, representing eight different epitope-MHC pairs that were recognized by de novo-induced CD8 + T cells and were spread across the full length of S (Fig. 4a, b).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Specificity and phenotype of CD8 + T cells
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We detected a strong pre-existing S-pool-2-specific IFNγ + CD4 + T cell response in one participant (Extended Data Fig. 7b).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Polarization of T cell responses
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The magnitude of S-specific CD4 + T cell responses correlated positively with S1-binding IgG (Extended Data Fig. 6a) and, consistent with the concept of intramolecular help 30 , also with the strength of S-specific CD8 + T cell responses (Extended Data Fig. 6b).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Sette, A. et al. Selective CD4+ T cell help for antibody responses to a large viral pathogen: deterministic linkage of specificities. Immunity 28, 847–858 (2008). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Confirming ELISpot findings, seven participants displayed pre-existing S-pool-2-specific CD8 + T cell responses, which were not further amplified by vaccination in six participants.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Polarization of T cell responses
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the CD4 + and the CD8 + T cell responses contracted after day 29 in participants vaccinated with 30 μg BNT162b2, and were higher than or in the range of recall antigen memory responses on day 85 (Fig. 2c, Extended Data Fig. 5f).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A high proportion of boosted CD8 + T cells were early-differentiated central effector and memory cells; the T cell population contracted and further differentiated towards an early-differentiated memory phenotype with co-expression of CD27 and CD28.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magnitude of epitope-specific CD8 + T cell responses ranged from 0.02 to 2.92% of peripheral CD8 + T cells, with the most notable expansion for HLA-A*0201-YLQPRTFLL, HLA-A*2402-QYIKWPWYI and HLA-B*3501-QPTESIVRF, and contracted to 0.01 to 0.28% by day 85.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Specificity and phenotype of CD8 + T cells
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A considerable fraction of vaccine-induced, S-specific CD4 + T cells secreted IFNγ, IL-2 or both, whereas we barely detected T cells secreting the T helper 2 cell cytokine IL-4 (Fig. 3a, Extended Data Fig. 7a-c).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Polarization of T cell responses
plainn = 41- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although CD8 + T cell responses against the S1 subunit were not detected at baseline, several individuals had pre-existing immune responses against the S2 subunit”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At dose levels of 10 μg or higher, the magnitude of CD4 + T cell responses was not dose-dependent and varied between individuals.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although neutralizing-antibody GMTs against the two pseudoviruses representing B.1.351-lineageS proteins were neutralized at reduced GMTs, no escape from neutralization was noted.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any local reaction, n (%) 7 (58) 12 (100) 12 (100) 1 1 (92) 42 (88)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 2 ( 17) 3 ( 25”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 2 ( 17) 3 ( 25”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sera from individuals (n = 38) who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or recovered from COVID-19 were drawn from donors 18-83 years of age at least 14 days after PCR-confirmed diagnosis and at a time at which the participants were asymptomatic.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Human convalescent serum and PBMC panel
plainn = 38- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PBMC donors had asymptomatic or mild infections (n = 16, clinical score 1 and 2) or had been hospitalized (n = 2, clinical score 4 and 5).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Human convalescent serum and PBMC panel
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any systemic reaction, n (%) 4 (36) 7 (64) 10 (83) 10 (83) 31 (67)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 46- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any local reaction, n (%) 6 (50) 12 (100) 12 (100) 1 0 (83) 40 (83)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 2 ( 17) 3 ( 25”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 local reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 local reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One participant in the 1-μg dose cohort (outlier on day 8 in a and highest dataset in b) presented with a non-treatment-related gastroenteritis on days 6-8.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any systemic reaction, n (%) 9 (75) 12 (100) 1 1 (92) 12 (100) 4 4 (92)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any local reaction, n (%) 4 (36) 10 (91) 10 (83) 11 (92) 35 (76)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 46- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 (9) 1 (8) 3 (25) 5 (12)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 46- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8) 0 (0) 1 (2)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 local reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any systemic reaction, n (%) 9 (75) 12 (100) 9 (75) 9 (75) 39 (81)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 2 ( 17) 3 ( 25”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PBMC samples from individuals (n = 18) who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or recovered from COVID-19 were collected from donors 22-79 years of age 30-62 days after PCR-confirmed diagnosis, when donors were asymptomatic.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Human convalescent serum and PBMC panel
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The observational data also demonstrate that BNT162b2 reduces laboratory-confirmed infection, as well as viral load in individuals who are infected [3][4][5][6] .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3][4][5][6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“mRNA vaccines are molecularly well-defined and synthesized efficiently from DNA templates by in vitro transcription [8][9][10] .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8][9][10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, BNT162b2 elicits an adaptive humoral and poly-specific cellular immune response against epitopes that are conserved in a broad range of variants, at”
- Also stated in: § BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans · plain
“BNT162b2 elicits an adaptive humoral and poly-specific cellular immune response against epitopes that are conserved in a broad range of variants, at well-tolerated doses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This favourable phenotype has the potential to respond rapidly to infection, but has a limited capacity to produce IFNγ, and thus is less likely to be detected in functional T cell assays with PBMCs.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitations of our clinical study include the small sample size, the lack of representation of populations of interest and limited availability of blood samples for a more in-depth T cell analysis.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trial was carried out in Germany in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and with approval by an independent ethics committee (Ethik-Kommission of the Landesärztekammer Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany) and the competent regulatory authority (Paul-Ehrlich Institute, Langen, Germany).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants with data available were included in the immunogenicity analyses.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample size for the reported part of the study was not based on statistical hypothesis testing.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reporter virus generates similar plaque morphologies and indistinguishable growth curves from wild-type virus.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experiments were not randomized, and investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Online content
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that BNT162b2 induces a broad immune response with SARS-CoV-2 S-specific neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cells.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Progression in that cohort and dose escalation required data review by a safety review committee.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants provided written informed consent.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another participant (10-μg dose cohort) presented with concurrent moderate nasopharyngitis unrelated to the study drug when the booster dose was due; this participant did not receive the booster dose but remained on the study for follow-up.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One participant (1-μg dose cohort) withdrew before the booster dose for reasons unrelated to the study drug and was not available for further follow-up.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cell lines were tested for mycoplasma contamination after receipt and before expansion and cryopreservation.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Human convalescent serum and PBMC panel
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sentinel dosing was performed in each dose-escalation cohort.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Clinical trial design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Grading of adverse events was performed according to US Food and Drug Administration recommendations 53 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [53]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twelve participants per dose cohort received the priming and the booster doses, except for two participants who did not receive the booster dose owing to a study-drug-unrelated withdrawal by one participant (1-μg dose level), and concurrent nasopharyngitis not related to the study drug in another participant (10-μg dose level).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One variant had four mutations from S of the B.1.1.298lineage (also referred to as SARS-CoV-2/hu/DK/CL-5/1) (Y453F/D614G/I692V/ M1229I) 28 .”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > VSV-SARS-CoV-2 S pseudovirus neutralization assay for multiple-site mutations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28] Lassaunière, R. et al. Working paper on SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations arising in Danish mink, their 2 spread to humans and neutralization data, https://files.ssi.dk/Mink-cluster-5-short-report_AFO2 (2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant PBMCs were tested without replicates.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each serum was tested in duplicate”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the geometric mean accounts for non-normal distribution of antibody concentrations and titres that span several orders of magnitude.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One participant from the 20-μg dose cohort with a strong pre-existing CD4 + T cell response to S pool 2 was excluded.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participant PBMCs were tested without replicates (b-e).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tests were performed in duplicate and with a positive control (anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody CD3-2 (1:1,000; Mabtech)).”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > IFNγ ELISpot
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spot count data from two participants from the 20-μg dose cohort could not be normalized and are not plotted.”
- Also stated in: § Statistical analysis · plain
“Spot count data from two participants from the 20-μg dose cohort could not be normalized and are not plotted.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Statistical analysis
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Statistical analysis · plain
The paper relies on this without support.
The sufficiency of neutralizing antibodies alone for full and long-lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and the contribution of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, remain unclear.
“The sufficiency of neutralizing antibodies alone for full and long-lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and the contribution of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, remain unclear.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The convalescent serum panel is a valid comparator for judging the magnitude of vaccine-induced antibody responses.
“Samples from individuals who had recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 ('human convalescent samples' (HCS)) (n = 38) were obtained at least 14 days after PCR-confirmed diagnosis and at a time at which the donors were no longer symptomatic.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The reporter virus's similar plaque morphology and indistinguishable growth curves from wild-type virus mean it is a valid surrogate for wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in neutralization assays.
“The reporter virus generates similar plaque morphologies and indistinguishable growth curves from wild-type virus.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The identity of the USA_WA1/2020 strain S sequence to wild-type SARS-CoV-2 S means that neutralization titers against this strain reflect neutralization of wild-type SARS-CoV-2.
“The USA_WA1/2020 strain S is identical in sequence to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 S (Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ELISpot normalization method adequately corrects for varying sample quality.
“To account for varying sample quality reflected in the number of spots in response to anti-CD3 antibody stimulation, we applied a normalization method that enabled direct comparison of spot counts and strength of response between individuals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pMHC multimer positivity criterion identifies true antigen-specific CD8+ T cells.
“CD8 + T cell reactivities were considered positive, when a clustered population was observed that was labelled with only two pMHC multimer colours.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The peptide pools covering the S sequence and RBD are representative of T cell epitopes.
“Two pools of 15-mer peptides overlapping by 11 amino acids and together covering the whole sequence of wild-type (no P2 S mutation) SARS-CoV-2 S”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The favorable safety profile observed during phase 1 testing of BNT162b24,8 was confirmed in the phase 2/3 portion of the trial.”
From Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) is a lipid nanoparticle formulation containing nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral spike glycoprotein.1”
From Evaluation of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age (2022) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Findings from studies conducted in the United States and Germany among healthy men and women showed that two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2 elicited high SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers and robust antigen-specific CD8+ and Th1-type CD4+ T-cell responses.8”
From Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition, the reactogenicity profile of BNT162b2 represented mainly short-term local (i.e., injection site) and systemic responses.”
From Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The 50% neutralizing geometric mean titers elicited by 30 μg of BNT162b2 in older and younger adults exceeded the geometric mean titer measured in a human convalescent serum panel, despite a lower neutralizing response in older adults than in younger adults.”
From Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The majority of COVID-19 vaccines are designed to evoke humoral and cellular immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein — responses that may not prevent infection but robustly protect against severe COVID-19, at least for certain periods of time11,150–157.”
From COVID-19 and cellular senescence (2023) · cites this paper as [155]
In the citing paper
“Neutralizing activity against the B.1.351 lineage virus was robust at a geometric mean titer that was much higher than that obtained after one dose of BNT162b2, when strong efficacy was already observed in the C4591001 efficacy trial.1-3”
From Neutralizing Activity of BNT162b2-Elicited Serum (2021) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“The safety and immunogenicity data of the phase I/II trials of BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 supported the selection of BNT162b2 for a phase II/III trial based on milder systemic reactions82 and strong adaptive humoral and poly-specific cellular immune responses against epitopes conserved in diverse SARS-CoV-2 virus variants.81”
From COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Platforms and current developments (2022) · cites this paper as [81]
In the citing paper
“BioNTech/Pfizer's modRNA platform RNA sequence (used for BNT162b2) consists of human α-globin 5′ untranslated region (UTR), amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES), and mtRNR1 3′ UTR motifs91 and a poly(A) tail consisting of A30LA70 (linker [L]: GCAUAUGACU),81”
From COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Platforms and current developments (2022) · cites this paper as [81]
In the citing paper
“The two vaccines against COVID-19 to first gain accelerated approvals and meet the required safety and efficacy standards were mRNA vaccines.8,81,82”
From COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Platforms and current developments (2022) · cites this paper as [81]
In the citing paper
“The BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine contains lipid nanoparticle–formulated mRNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein from the parental Wuhan reference strain (Wuhan-Hu-1) (11).”
From Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron by BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine–elicited human sera (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“BNT162b2 vaccination induces strong polyepitopic T cell responses, directed against multiple epitopes spanning the length of the S protein (11).”
From Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron by BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine–elicited human sera (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“In phase I trials of the two candidates, two 30 μg doses delivered 21 days apart induced high antibody and neutralizing titres and a robust CD4+ and CD8+ response with mild to moderate adverse events27,28,123,124.”
From mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“In healthy adults, two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2 elicited high neutralizing titers and robust, antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2.3,4”
From Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the BNT162b2 covid-19 vaccine in adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“In conclusion, in 94.1% (32 out of 34) of participants, two doses of BNT162b2 induced poly-epitopic CD4 + T cell responses (de novo or amplified) directed against both N-and C-terminal portions of S.”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
Reported 32 · recomputed 33
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Dose 2 up to day 7 after dose 2 nn 11 11 12 12 46 Any systemic reaction, n (%) 4 (36) 7 (64) 10 (83) 10 (83) 31 (67) Any grade ≥3 systemic reaction, n (%) 0 (0) 1 (9) 1 (8) 3 (25) 5 (12)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Additional information
Reported 12 · recomputed 10.869565
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“De novo S-specific CD8 + T cell responses were induced in 33 participants.These were directed against both (22 participants) or one of the S pools (S pool 1 in 10 participants and S pool 2 in 2 participants)”
§ BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans > Vaccine-induced T cell responses
Reported 33 · recomputed 34
Citations
Cites
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2034577 · Cited by 14,592
Self-citationLu, R., Zhao, X., Li, J., Niu, P., Yang, B., Wu, H., Wang, W., Song, H., Huang, B., Zhu, N., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30251-8 · Cited by 11,907
MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization
Katoh, K., Rozewicki, J., & Yamada, K. D. (2019) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbx108 · Cited by 8,909
Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation
Wrapp, D., Wang, N., Corbett, K. S., Goldsmith, J. A., Hsieh, C.-L., Abiona, O., Graham, B. S., & McLellan, J. S. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2507 · Cited by 8,897
mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology
Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W., & Weissman, D. (2018) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2017.243 · Cited by 4,667
Grifoni, A., Weiskopf, D., Ramirez, S. I., Mateus, J., Dan, J. M., Moderbacher, C. R., Rawlings, S. A., Sutherland, A., Premkumar, L., Jadi, R. S., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015 · Cited by 3,595
RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine BNT162b2 Selected for a Pivotal Efficacy Study
Walsh, E. E., Frenck, R., Falsey, A. R., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Neuzil, K., Mulligan, M. J., Bailey, R., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.08.17.20176651 · Cited by 2,615
Self-citationBNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting
Dagan, N., Barda, N., Kepten, E., Miron, O., Perchik, S., Katz, M. A., Hernán, M. A., Lipsitch, M., Reis, B., & Balicer, R. D. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2101765 · Cited by 2,527
Detection of a SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern in South Africa
Tegally, H., Wilkinson, E., Giovanetti, M., Iranzadeh, A., Fonseca, V., Giandhari, J., Doolabh, D., Pillay, S., San, E. J., Msomi, N., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03402-9 · Cited by 2,510
mRNA-based therapeutics--developing a new class of drugs
Sahin, U., Karikó, K., & Türeci, Ö. (2014) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd4278 · Cited by 2,474
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 906
HIV mRNA Vaccines—Progress and Future Paths
Mu, Z., Haynes, B. F., & Cain, D. W. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9020134 · Cited by 84
Valyi-Nagy, I. T., Matula, Z., Gönczi, M., Tasnády, S., Bekő, G., Réti, M., Ajzner, É., & Uher, F. (2021) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-021-00471-6 · Cited by 80
Advances in the design and development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
Peng, X., Cheng, J., Gong, H., Yuan, M.-D., Zhao, X., Li, Z., & Wei, D. (2021) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-021-00360-1 · Cited by 84
Lipid Nanoparticle Delivery Systems to Enable mRNA-Based Therapeutics
Semple, S. C., Leone, R. D., Barbosa, C., Tam, Y. K., & Lin, P. J. C. (2022) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14020398 · Cited by 80
Rapid, adaptable and sensitive Cas13-based COVID-19 diagnostics using ADESSO
Casati, B., Verdi, J., Hempelmann, A., Kittel, M., Klaebisch, A. G., Meister, B., Welker, S., Asthana, S., Giorgio, S. D., Boskovic, P., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30862-y · Cited by 81
Bitoun, S., Henry, J., Desjardins, D., Vauloup‐Fellous, C., Dib, N., Belkhir, R., Mouna, L., Joly, C., Bitu, M., Ly, B., et al. (2021) · Arthritis & Rheumatology · doi:10.1002/art.42058 · Cited by 79
Reinscheid, M., Luxenburger, H., Karl, V., Graeser, A., Giese, S., Ciminski, K., Reeg, D. B., Oberhardt, V., Roehlen, N., Lang‐Meli, J., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32324-x · Cited by 79
Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in multiple sclerosis patients
Kelly, H. M., Sokola, B. S., & Abboud, H. (2021) · Journal of Neuroimmunology · doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577599 · Cited by 78
PLSCR1 is a cell-autonomous defence factor against SARS-CoV-2 infection
Xu, D., Jiang, W., Wu, L., Gaudet, R. G., Park, E., Su, M., Cheppali, S. K., Cheemarla, N. R., Kumar, P., Uchil, P. D., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06322-y · Cited by 79
Keratoplasty Rejection After the BNT162b2 messenger RNA Vaccine
Wasser, L. M., Roditi, E., Zadok, D., Berkovitz, L., & Weill, Y. (2021) · Cornea · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000002761 · Cited by 75
One‐Component Cationic Lipids for Systemic mRNA Delivery to Splenic T Cells
Zhang, X., Su, K., Wu, S., Lin, L., He, S., Yan, X., Shi, L., & Liu, S. (2024) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.202405444 · Cited by 76
Kim, S., Jeon, J. H., Kim, M., Lee, Y., Hwang, Y.-H., Park, M., Li, C. H., Lee, T., Lee, J.-A., Kim, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51411-9 · Cited by 78
mRNA vaccines: Past, present, future
Karam, M., & Daoud, G. (2022) · Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ajps.2022.05.003 · Cited by 76
Zadok, O. I. B., Shaul, A. A., Ben‐Avraham, B., Yaari, V., Zvi, H. B., Shostak, Y., Pertzov, B., Eliakim‐Raz, N., Abed, G., Abuhazira, M., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Heart Failure · doi:10.1002/ejhf.2199 · Cited by 75
Jaganathan, S., Stieber, F., Rao, S. N., Nikolayevskyy, V., Manissero, D., Allen, N. P. C., Boyle, J., & Howard, J. (2021) · Infectious Diseases and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40121-021-00521-8 · Cited by 74
mRNA Therapeutic Modalities Design, Formulation and Manufacturing under Pharma 4.0 Principles
Ouranidis, A., Vavilis, T., Mandala, E., Davidopoulou, C., Stamoula, Ε., Markopoulou, C. K., Karagianni, A., & Kachrimanis, K. (2021) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines10010050 · Cited by 75
Antibody Responses to Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection or after COVID-19 Vaccination
Altawalah, H. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9080910 · Cited by 74
Respiratory mucosal immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination
Mitsi, E., Diniz, M. O., Reiné, J., Collins, A. M., Robinson, R., Hyder-Wright, A. D., Farrar, M., Liatsikos, K., Hamilton, J., Onyema, O., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42433-w · Cited by 73
Furer, V., Rondaan, C., Agmon‐Levin, N., van Assen, S., Bijl, M., Kapetanovic, M. C., de Thurah, A. L., Müeller-Ladner, U., Paran, D., Schreiber, K. I., et al. (2021) · RMD Open · doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001594 · Cited by 69
Early humoral response among lung transplant recipients vaccinated with BNT162b2 vaccine
Shostak, Y., Shafran, N., Heching, M., Rosengarten, D., Shtraichman, O., Shitenberg, D., Amor, S. M., Yahav, D., Zvi, H. B., Pertzov, B., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00184-3 · Cited by 72
Lau, E. H. Y., Hui, D. S. C., Tsang, O. T., Chan, W. H., Kwan, M. Y. W., Chiu, S. S. S., Cheng, S. M. S., Ko, R. L., Li, J. K., Chaothai, S., et al. (2021) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101174 · Cited by 71
Zhang, Z., Shen, Q., & Chang, H. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.843928 · Cited by 69
Feng, Y., Tai, W., Huang, P., Qi, S., Yu, X., Li, M., Li, M., Zhang, M., Cao, F., Gao, X., et al. (2025) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/s41563-025-02284-w · Cited by 70
Quadeer, A. A., Ahmed, S. F., & McKay, M. R. (2021) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100312 · Cited by 71
Immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in kidney transplant recipients
Prendecki, M. F., Thomson, T., Clarke, C., Martin, P., Gleeson, S., de Aguiar, R. C., Edwards, H., Mortimer, P. M., McIntyre, S., Mokreri, D., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02096-1 · Cited by 66
COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus of the European Myeloma Network
Ludwig, H., Sonneveld, P., Facon, T. T. F., Miguel, J. F. S., Avet‐Loiseau, H., Mohty, M., Mateos, M.-V., Moreau, P., Cavo, M., Pawlyn, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Haematology · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(21)00278-7 · Cited by 66
Immune responses in Omicron SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in vaccinated adults
Kared, H., Wolf, A., Alirezaylavasani, A., Ravussin, A., Solum, G., Tran, T. T., Lund‐Johansen, F., Vaage, J. T., Nissen‐Meyer, L. S. H., Nygaard, U. C., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31888-y · Cited by 65
Defending against SARS-CoV-2: The T cell perspective
Almendro-Vázquez, P., Laguna‐Goya, R., & Paz‐Artal, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1107803 · Cited by 67
SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies: A Network Meta-Analysis across Vaccines
Rogliani, P., Chetta, A. A., Cazzola, M., & Calzetta, L. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9030227 · Cited by 62
Marra, A. R., Kobayashi, T., Suzuki, H., Alsuhaibani, M., Tofaneto, B. M., Bariani, L. M., Auler, M. D. A., Salinas, J. L., Edmond, M. B., Doll, M. E., et al. (2022) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.035 · Cited by 62
Delivery of mRNA for regulating functions of immune cells
Shi, J. Y., Huang, M., Lu, Z.-D., Du, X., Shen, S., Xu, C., & Wang, J. (2022) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.03.033 · Cited by 62
Zhang, B., Upadhyay, R., Hao, Y., Samanovic, M. I., Herati, R. S., Blair, J. D., Axelrad, J. E., Mulligan, M. J., Littman, D. R., & Satija, R. (2023) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-023-01608-9 · Cited by 61
Systematic discovery of CRISPR-boosted CAR T cell immunotherapies
Datlinger, P., Pankevich, E. V., Arnold, C. D., Pranckevicius, N., Lin, J., Romanovskaia, D., Schaefer, M., Piras, F., Orts, A.-C., Nemc, A., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09507-9 · Cited by 63
Rowntree, L. C., Nguyen, T. H. O., Kedzierski, Ł., Neeland, M. R., Petersen, J., Crawford, J. C., Allen, L. F., Clemens, E. B., Chua, B. Y. L., McQuilten, H. A., et al. (2022) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2022.06.003 · Cited by 62
Humoral and cellular immune responses in SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-vaccinated patients with cancer
Mairhofer, M., Kausche, L., Kaltenbrunner, S., Ghanem, R., Stegemann, M., Klein, K., Pammer, M., Rauscher, I., Salzer, H. J. F., Doppler, S., et al. (2021) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2021.08.001 · Cited by 60
Targeting nucleic acid-based therapeutics to tumors: Challenges and strategies for polyplexes
Vetter, V. C., & Wagner, E. (2022) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.04.013 · Cited by 61
Doerfler, W. (2021) · Virus Research · doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198466 · Cited by 58
Vassilaki, N., Gargalionis, A. N., Bletsa, A., Papamichalopoulos, N., Kontou, E., Gkika, M., Patas, K., Theodoridis, D., Manolis, I., Ioannidis, A., et al. (2021) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms9081725 · Cited by 58
Trougakos, I. P., Terpos, E., Zirou, C., Sklirou, A. D., Apostolakou, F., Gumeni, S., Charitaki, I., Papanagnou, E., Bagratuni, T., Liacos, C., et al. (2021) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-021-02090-6 · Cited by 60
Immunogenicity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Common Variable Immunodeficiency
Arroyo‐Sánchez, D., Cabrera-Marante, Ó., Laguna‐Goya, R., Almendro-Vázquez, P., Carretero, O., Gil‐Etayo, F. J., Suàrez-Fernández, P., Pérez‐Romero, P., de Frías, E. R., Serrano, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1007/s10875-021-01174-5 · Cited by 57
Oyaert, M., Scheerder, M. D., Herrewege, S. V., Laureys, G., Assche, S. V., Cambron, M., Naesens, L., Hoste, L., Claes, K., Haerynck, F., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.858399 · Cited by 60
Alexander, J. L., Mullish, B. H., Danckert, N. P., Liu, Z., Olbei, M. L., Saifuddin, A., Torkizadeh, M., Ibraheim, H., Blanco, J. M., Roberts, L. A., et al. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104430 · Cited by 58
Development and applications of mRNA treatment based on lipid nanoparticles
Wang, Z., Ma, W., Fu, X., Qi, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zhang, S. (2023) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108130 · Cited by 57
Rappaport, A., Hong, S., Scallan, C. D., Gitlin, L., Akoopie, A., Boucher, G. R., Egorova, M., Espinosa, J. A., Fidanza, M., Kachura, M. A., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31005-z · Cited by 57
Messenger RNA vaccines for cancer immunotherapy: progress promotes promise
Huff, A. L., Jaffee, E. M., & Zaidi, N. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci156211 · Cited by 60
Vaccine adjuvants for infectious disease in the clinic
Goetz, M. J., Thotathil, N., Zhao, Z., & Mitragotri, S. (2024) · Bioengineering & Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/btm2.10663 · Cited by 61
Chiuppesi, F., Zaia, J. A., Frankel, P. H., Stan, R., Drake, J., Williams, B., Acosta, A. M., Francis, K., Taplitz, R. A., Dickter, J. K., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Microbe · doi:10.1016/s2666-5247(22)00027-1 · Cited by 55
Bolze, A., Neveux, I., Barrett, K. M. S., White, S. J., Isaksson, M., Dabe, S., Lee, W., Grzymski, J. J., Washington, N. L., & Cirulli, E. T. (2022) · Human Genetics and Genomics Advances · doi:10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100084 · Cited by 55
COVID-19 vaccine testing in pregnant females is necessary
Klein, S. L., Creisher, P. S., & Burd, I. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci147553 · Cited by 55
Comorbid illnesses are associated with altered adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2
Yu, K. K. Q., Fischinger, S., Smith, M. T., Atyeo, C. G., Cizmeci, D., Wolf, C. R., Layton, E. D., Logue, J. K., Aguilar, M. S., Shuey, K. D., et al. (2021) · JCI Insight · doi:10.1172/jci.insight.146242 · Cited by 56
Innate and adaptive immune responses toward nanomedicines
Viana, I. M. D. O., Roussel, S., Defrêne, J., Lima, E. M., Barabé, F., & Bertrand, N. (2021) · Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B · doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2021.02.022 · Cited by 57
Morales‐Núñez, J. J., Muñóz-Valle, J. F., Meza-López, C., Wang, L., Machado-Sulbarán, A. C., Torres-Hernández, P. C., Bedolla‐Barajas, M., la O-Gómez, B. D., Balcázar-Félix, P., & Hernández‐Bello, J. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9070742 · Cited by 54
Takano, T., Morikawa, M., Adachi, Y., Kabasawa, K., Sax, N., Moriyama, S., Sun, L., Isogawa, M., Nishiyama, A., Onodera, T., et al. (2022) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100631 · Cited by 55
Role of T cells in severe COVID-19 disease, protection, and long term immunity
Hermens, J. M., & Keşmir, C. (2023) · Immunogenetics · doi:10.1007/s00251-023-01294-9 · Cited by 57
Correlates of Vaccine-Induced Protection against SARS-CoV-2
Koch, T., Mellinghoff, S. C., Shamsrizi, P., Addo, M. M., & Dahlke, C. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9030238 · Cited by 57
The way of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development: success and challenges
Dong, Y., Dai, T., Wang, B., Zhang, L., Zeng, L., Huang, J., Yan, H., Zhang, L., & Zhou, F. (2021) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-021-00796-w · Cited by 53
Koutsakos, M., Lee, W. S., Reynaldi, A., Tan, H., Gare, G., Kinsella, P. M., Liew, K. C., Taiaroa, G., Williamson, D. A., Kent, H. E., et al. (2022) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2022.05.018 · Cited by 58
Covid-19: virology, variants, and vaccines
Young, M., Crook, H., Scott, J. T., & Edison, P. (2022) · BMJ Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000040 · Cited by 55
Islam, M. J., Islam, N. N., Alom, M. S., Kabir, M., & Halim, M. A. (2022) · Immunobiology · doi:10.1016/j.imbio.2022.152302 · Cited by 59
Thomson, T., Prendecki, M. F., Gleeson, S., Martin, P., Spensley, K. J., de Aguiar, R. C., Sandhu, B., Seneschall, C., Gan, J. J. L., Clarke, C., et al. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101642 · Cited by 51
High‐Precision Synthesis of RNA‐Loaded Lipid Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications
Seo, H., Jeon, L., Kwon, J., & Lee, H. (2023) · Advanced Healthcare Materials · doi:10.1002/adhm.202203033 · Cited by 54
Lee, S. W., Moon, J., Lee, S.-K., Lee, H. J., Moon, S., Chung, S. J., Yeo, Y., Park, T. S., Park, D. W., Kim, T., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.779212 · Cited by 50
Meir, J., Abid, M. A., & Abid, M. B. (2021) · Transplantation and Cellular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2021.09.016 · Cited by 51
Rapid lateral flow tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies
Wang, J. J., Zhang, N., Richardson, S. A., & Wu, J. V. (2021) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1080/14737159.2021.1913123 · Cited by 49
Corneal graft rejection following COVID-19 vaccine
Rallis, K. I., Ting, D. S. J., Said, D. G., & Dua, H. S. (2021) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01671-2 · Cited by 49
Seirafianpour, F., Pourriyahi, H., Mesgarha, M. G., Mohammad, A. P., Shaka, Z., & Goodarzi, A. (2022) · Dermatologic Therapy · doi:10.1111/dth.15461 · Cited by 50
Exogenous RNA surveillance by proton-sensing TRIM25
Kim, M., Pyo, Y., Hyun, S., Jeong, M., Choi, Y., & Kim, V. N. (2025) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.ads4539 · Cited by 49
An Overview of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era
Pascual‐Iglesias, A., Cantón, J., Ortega‐Prieto, A. M., Jiménez-Guardeño, J. M., & Regla-Nava, J. Á. (2021) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens10081030 · Cited by 50
Xu, K., Dai, L., & Gao, G. F. (2021) · International Immunology · doi:10.1093/intimm/dxab061 · Cited by 48
Hadjadj, J., Planas, D., Ouedrani, A., Buffier, S., Delage, L., Nguyen, Y., Bruel, T., Stolzenberg, M., Staropoli, I., Ermak, N., et al. (2022) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221508 · Cited by 48
Using Adjuvants to Drive T Cell Responses for Next-Generation Infectious Disease Vaccines
Rapaka, R. R., Cross, A. S., & McArthur, M. A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9080820 · Cited by 48
Pulvirenti, F., Salinas, A. F., Milito, C., Terreri, S., Mortari, E. P., Quintarelli, C., Cecca, S. D., Lagnese, G., Punziano, A., Guercio, M., et al. (2021) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells10112915 · Cited by 47
Khoo, N. K. H., Lim, J. M. E., Gill, U. S., de Alwis, R., Tan, N., Toh, J. Z. N., Abbott, J. E., Usai, C., Ooi, E. E., Low, J. G. H., et al. (2022) · Med · doi:10.1016/j.medj.2021.12.004 · Cited by 49
Crespo, M., Barrilado-Jackson, A., Padilla, E., Eguía, J., Echeverría-Esnal, D., Cao, H., Faura, A., Folgueiras, M., Solà-Porta, E., Pascual-Guàrdia, S., et al. (2021) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.16854 · Cited by 48
The Robustness of Cellular Immunity Determines the Fate of SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Moga, E., Lynton‐Pons, E., & Domingo, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.904686 · Cited by 48
Early computational detection of potential high-risk SARS-CoV-2 variants
(2023) · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106618 · Cited by 46
Self-citationImmunity to SARS-CoV-2: Lessons Learned
FERGIE, J. E., & Srivastava, A. K. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.654165 · Cited by 46
Urbanowicz, R. A., Tsoleridis, T., Jackson, H. J., Cusin, L., Duncan, J. D., Chappell, J. G., Tarr, A. W., Nightingale, J., Norrish, A. R., Ikram, A., et al. (2021) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abj0847 · Cited by 45
Association between Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity after Vaccination with BNT162b2
Bauernfeind, S., Salzberger, B., Hitzenbichler, F., Scigala, K., Einhauser, S., Wagner, R., Gessner, A., Koestler, J., & Peterhoff, D. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9101089 · Cited by 45
Hess, S., Lancsar, E., Mariel, P., Meyerhoff, J., Song, F., van den Broek‐Altenburg, E. M., Alaba, O. A., Amaris, G., Arellana, J., Basso, L. J., et al. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114800 · Cited by 47
Röltgen, K., Nielsen, S. C. A., Arunachalam, P. S., Yang, F., Hoh, R. A., Wirz, O. F., Lee, A. S., Gao, F., Mallajosyula, V., Li, C., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.04.05.21254952 · Cited by 45
Kwok, S. L. L., Cheng, S. M. S., Leung, J. N., Leung, K. S. M., Lee, C. K., Peiris, M. J. S., & Wu, J. T. K. (2022) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2022.27.2.2101197 · Cited by 44
Inhalation of ACE2-expressing lung exosomes provides prophylactic protection against SARS-CoV-2
Wang, Z., Hu, S., Popowski, K. D., Liu, S., Zhu, D., Mei, X., Li, J., Hu, Y., Dinh, P., Wang, X., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45628-x · Cited by 44
Jangra, S., Landers, J. J., Rathnasinghe, R., O’Konek, J. J., Janczak, K. W., Cascalho, M., Kennedy, A. A., Tai, A. W., Baker, J. R., Schotsaert, M., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.729189 · Cited by 44
Wu, D., Kolesnikov, A. V., Yin, R. M., Guest, J. D., Gowthaman, R., Shmelev, A., Serdyuk, Y. V., Dianov, D. V., Efimov, G. A., Pierce, B. G., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27669-8 · Cited by 45
Peculiarities of the T Cell Immune Response in COVID-19
Kudlay, D. A., Кофиади, И. А., & Khaitov, M. R. (2022) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines10020242 · Cited by 43
The effect of SARS-CoV-2 D614G mutation on BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited neutralization
Zou, J., Xie, X., Fontes-Garfias, C. R., Swanson, K. A., Kanevsky, I., Tompkins, K. R., Cutler, M. W., Cooper, D., Dormitzer, P. R., & Shi, P. (2021) · npj Vaccines · doi:10.1038/s41541-021-00313-8 · Cited by 42
Self-citationLiu, Y., Wang, Z., Zhuang, X., Zhang, S., Chen, Z., Zou, Y., Sheng, J., Li, T., Tai, W., Yu, J., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37926-7 · Cited by 43
COVID-19: From emerging variants to vaccination
Senevirathne, T. H., Wekking, D., Swain, J. W. R., Solinas, C., & Silva, P. D. (2023) · Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2023.11.005 · Cited by 45
Review: Vaccine Myth-Buster – Cleaning Up With Prejudices and Dangerous Misinformation
Löffler, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.663280 · Cited by 44
Ishaqat, A., & Herrmann, A. (2021) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.1c08484 · Cited by 42
Bonnet, B., Chabrolles, H., Archimbaud, C., Brebion, A., Cosme, J., Dutheil, F., Lambert, C., Junda, M., Mirand, A., Ollier, A., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.842912 · Cited by 43
Krüttgen, A., Klingel, H., Haase, G., Haefner, H., Imöhl, M., & Kleines, M. (2021) · Journal of Virological Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114295 · Cited by 41
Fractionation of COVID-19 vaccine doses could extend limited supplies and reduce mortality
Cowling, B. J., Lim, W. W., & Cobey, S. E. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01440-4 · Cited by 41
Pseudouridines in RNAs: switching atoms means shifting paradigms
Lin, T., Mehta, R., & Glatt, S. (2021) · FEBS Letters · doi:10.1002/1873-3468.14188 · Cited by 42
Afshar, Z. M., Babazadeh, A., Janbakhsh, A., Mansouri, F., Sio, T. T. W., Sullman, M. J. M., Carson‐Chahhoud, K., Hosseinzadeh, R., Barary, M., & Ebrahimpour, S. (2021) · Reviews in Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/rmv.2309 · Cited by 41
Gringeri, M., Battini, V., Cammarata, G., Mosini, G., Guarnieri, G., Leoni, C., Pozzi, M., Radice, S., Clementi, E., & Carnovale, C. (2022) · Expert Review of Vaccines · doi:10.1080/14760584.2022.2044799 · Cited by 40
Prevalent and immunodominant CD8 T cell epitopes are conserved in SARS-CoV-2 variants
Meyer, S., Blaas, I., Bollineni, R. C., Delić-Šarac, M., Tran, T. T., Knetter, C. F., Dai, K., Madssen, T. S., Vaage, J. T., Gustavsen, A., et al. (2023) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.111995 · Cited by 41
Modeling comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose fractionation in India
Du, Z., Wang, L., Pandey, A., Lim, W. W., Chinazzi, M., y Piontti, A. P., Lau, E. H. Y., Wu, P., Malani, A., Cobey, S. E., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01736-z · Cited by 40
COVID-19 vaccine dose sparing: strategies to improve vaccine equity and pandemic preparedness
Roozen, G. V. T., Roukens, A. H. E., & Roestenberg, M. (2022) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00075-4 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Sahin, U., Muik, A., Vogler, I., Derhovanessian, E., Kranz, L. M., Vormehr, M., Quandt, J., Bidmon, N., Ulges, A., Baum, A., Pascal, K. E., Maurus, D., Brachtendorf, S., Lörks, V., Sikorski, J., Koch, P., Hilker, R., Becker, D., Eller, A.-K., Grützner, J., Tonigold, M., Boesler, C., Rosenbaum, C., Heesen, L., Kühnle, M.-C., Poran, A., Dong, J. Z., Luxemburger, U., Kemmer-Brück, A., Langer, D., Bexon, M., Bolte, S., Palanche, T., Schultz, A., Baumann, S., Mahiny, A. J., Boros, G., Reinholz, J., Szabó, G. T., Karikó, K., Shi, P.-Y., Fontes-Garfias, C., Perez, J. L., Cutler, M., Cooper, D., Kyratsous, C. A., Dormitzer, P. R., Jansen, K. U., & Türeci, Ö.
- Affiliations
- BioNTech (Germany) (DE)
- Regeneron (United States) (US)
- BioNTech (United States) (US)
- Bexon Clinical Consulting (United States) (US)
- Clinical Research Services (DE)
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- Pfizer (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Sahin, Ugur
- Muik, Alexander
- Vogler, Isabel
- Kranz, Lena M.
- Vormehr, Mathias
- Quandt, Jasmin
- Baum, Alina
- Pascal, Kristen E.
- Maurus, Daniel
- Lörks, Verena
- Koch, Peter
- Hilker, Rolf
- Becker, Dirk
- Boesler, Carsten
- Kühnle, Marie-Cristine
- Poran, Asaf
- Dong, Jesse Z.
- Luxemburger, Ulrich
- Bexon, Martin
- Baumann, Sybille
- Mahiny, Azita J.
- Boros, Gábor
- Reinholz, Jonas
- Szabó, Gábor T.
- Karikó, Katalin
- Shi, Pei-Yong
- Fontes-Garfias, Camila
- Cutler, Mark
- Cooper, David
- Kyratsous, Christos A.
- Dormitzer, Philip R.
- Jansen, Kathrin U.
- Türeci, Özlem
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2021-05-27
- Volume
- 595
- Issue
- 7868
- Pages
- 572-577
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3164002264
- Semantic Scholar
- 21a565dbde52fc6e00043b8c1a3ed54b5540dfb6
- Cited by
- 919
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 179 · 2022: 288 · 2021: 209
- FWCI
- 66.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2025-07-16)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- medRxiv (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
- Keywords
- BNT162b2, COVID-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, neutralizing antibodies, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T helper cells, T cell epitopes, interferon-gamma, lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccine, humoral and cellular immune response, SARS-CoV-2 variants
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Adolescent, Adult, Antibodies, Viral, Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunologic Memory, Interferon-gamma, Interleukin-2, Male, Middle Aged, T-Lymphocytes, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Th1 Cells, Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte, Young Adult, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
