Cited by 432SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesAnimal Virus Infections Studies

Plasma Neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant

Open access
Schmidt, Fabian, Muecksch, Frauke, Weisblum, Yiska, Da Silva, Justin, Bednarski, Eva, Cho, Alice, Wang, Zijun, Gaebler, Christian +4 more·2022·New England Journal of Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant has spread internationally and is responsible for rapidly increasing case numbers. The emergence of divergent variants in the context of a heterogeneous and evolving neutralizing antibody response in host populations might compromise protection afforded by vaccines or prior infection. METHODS: We measured neutralizing antibody titers in 169 longitudinally collected plasma samples using pseudotypes bearing the Wuhan-hu-1 or the Omicron variant or a laboratory-designed neutralization-resistant SARS-CoV-2 spike (PMS20). Plasmas were obtained from convalescents who did or did not subsequently receive an mRNA vaccine, or naive individuals who received 3-doses of mRNA or 1-dose Ad26 vaccines. Samples were collected approximately 1, 5-6 and 12 months after initial vaccination or infection. RESULTS: Like PMS20, the Omicron spike protein was substantially resistant to neutralization compared to Wuhan-hu-1. In convalescent plasma the median deficit in neutralizing activity against PMS20 or Omicron was 30- to 60-fold. Plasmas from recipients of 2 mRNA vaccine doses were 30- to 180- fold less potent against PMS20 and Omicron than Wuhan-hu-1. Notably, previously infected or two-mRNA dose vaccinated individuals who received additional mRNA vaccine dose(s) had 38 to 154-fold and 35 to 214-fold increases in neutralizing activity against Omicron and PMS20 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Omicron exhibits similar distribution of sequence changes and neutralization resistance as does a laboratory-designed neutralization-resistant spike protein, suggesting natural evolutionary pressure to evade the human antibody response. Currently available mRNA vaccine boosters, that may promote antibody affinity maturation, significantly ameliorate SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmc2119641

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Due to escape of the Omicron variant from current approved vaccines, the efficacy of all current vaccines is reduced and a new variant-specific analysis is required.

    “However, due to escape of the Omicron variant from current approved vaccines, the efficacy of all current vaccines is reduced and a new variant-specific analysis is therefore required [13][14][15] .”

    From Safety and immunogenicity of a prefusion non-stabilized spike protein mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a phase I trial (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Results (vaccine-recipient plasma section; page unavailable) show substantially reduced neutralization of Omicron after two mRNA vaccine doses, and the Discussion reports low Omicron-neutralizing titers in some Ad26 recipients. The study measured plasma neutralization, not the clinical efficacy of all approved vaccines. Its Discussion calls for broadly based vaccination strategies, but does not state that a new variant-specific analysis is required. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmidt, F., Muecksch, F., Weisblum, Y., Da Silva, J., Bednarski, E., Cho, A., Wang, Z., Gaebler, C., Caskey, M., Nussenzweig, M. C., Hatziioannou, T., & Bieniasz, P. D.
Affiliations
  • Rockefeller University (US)
  • Rockefeller University, New York, NY
Corresponding author
Bieniasz, Paul D.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-02-10
Volume
386
Issue
6
Pages
599-601
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4205145778
Cited by
432
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 307 · 2021: 8
FWCI
32.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (2U19AI111825, P01-AI138398-S1, R01AI501111, R01AI78788, R37AI64003)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR001866)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
Keywords
Omicron variant, neutralizing antibodies, plasma neutralization, spike protein mutations, receptor binding domain, N-terminal domain, antibody escape, Wuhan-Hu-1, COVID-19 recovery, mRNA vaccines, neutralization titers

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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