Cited by 22SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchAnimal Virus Infections Studiesvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches

Optimised Non-Coding Regions of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine CV2CoV Improves Homologous and Heterologous Neutralising Antibody Responses

Open access
Roth, Nicole, Schön, Jacob, Hoffmann, Donata, Thran, Moritz, Thess, Andreas, Mueller, Stefan O., Petsch, Benjamin, Rauch, Susanne·2022·Vaccines

Abstract

More than two years after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, 33 COVID-19 vaccines, based on different platforms, have been approved in 197 countries. Novel variants that are less efficiently neutralised by antibodies raised against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 are circulating, highlighting the need to adapt vaccination strategies. Here, we compare the immunogenicity of a first-generation mRNA vaccine candidate, CVnCoV, with a second-generation mRNA vaccine candidate, CV2CoV, in rats. Higher levels of spike (S) protein expression were observed in cell culture with the CV2CoV mRNA than with the CVnCoV mRNA. Vaccination with CV2CoV also induced higher titres of virus neutralising antibodies with accelerated kinetics in rats compared with CVnCoV. Significant cross-neutralisation of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and the ‘mink’ variant (B1.1.298) that were circulating at the time in early 2021 were also demonstrated. In addition, CV2CoV induced higher levels of antibodies at lower doses than CVnCoV, suggesting that dose-sparing could be possible with the next-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, which could improve worldwide vaccine supply.

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 · 10.3390/vaccines10081251

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • CV2CoV induces high neutralizing antibodies in rats and non-human primates, with titers comparable to those seen with Comirnaty.

    “CV2CoV has now entered clinical testing (NCT05260437) and has been shown to induce high neutralizing antibodies in rats10 and non-human primates11, with titers comparable to those seen with Comirnaty, a licensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

    From Efficacy of an unmodified bivalent mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants in female small animal models (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

    Results §3.3 reports high neutralising-antibody titres in CV2CoV-vaccinated rats. The Discussion §4 mentions non-human-primate findings from a prior study, but this paper does not report a comparison of CV2CoV titres with Comirnaty; its direct comparator is CVnCoV. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The optimised non-coding regions of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CV2CoV improve homologous and heterologous neutralising antibody responses in rats and non-human primates, compared with CVnCoV and other modified mRNA vaccines.

    “The optimised non-coding regions of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CV2CoV have previously been shown to improve homologous and heterologous neutralising antibody responses in rats and non-human primates, compared with CVnCoV and other modified mRNA vaccines10,11.”

    From Efficacy of an unmodified bivalent mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants in female small animal models (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Abstract and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) report stronger homologous and variant cross-neutralising responses with CV2CoV than with CVnCoV in rats. The Discussion also reports consistent findings from a non-human-primate study. This paper does not establish that CV2CoV outperformed other modified mRNA vaccines. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rat-derived data translated very well to improved immunogenicity and protective efficacy in a non-human primate challenge model for SARS-CoV-2.

    “The rat-derived data translated very well to improved immunogenicity and protective efficacy in a non-human primate challenge model for SARS-CoV-210,11 and our cross-neutralization results emphasize the broad antigen coverage induced by the bivalent vaccine.”
  • The mRNA CV2CoV vaccine does not include chemically modified nucleosides.

    “does not include chemically modified nucleosides, as previously described10.”
  • Previous studies did not unveil variability between sexes.

    “Previous studies did not unveil variability between sexes10 and manipulation of female animals reduces the biosafety risks in BSL3 during challenge infection.”

    From Efficacy of an unmodified bivalent mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants in female small animal models (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

    Materials and Methods §2.3 says the study used female and male rats, but does not compare outcomes by sex. Results §3.2 reports no body-weight difference between vaccine groups, not between sexes. Searches for sex differences and male-versus-female antibody responses found no passage establishing the claimed absence of sex variability; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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
Roth, N., Schön, J., Hoffmann, D., Thran, M., Thess, A., Mueller, S. O., Petsch, B., & Rauch, S.
Affiliations
  • CureVac (Germany) (DE)
  • Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Petsch, Benjamin
Venue
Vaccines
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-08-04
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
1251
ISSN
2076-393X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4289861418
Cited by
22
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01KI20703)
  • core funds of the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (01KI20703)
  • CureVac AG (01KI20703)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, mRNA vaccines, non-coding regions, virus neutralising antibodies, cross-neutralization, SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha variant, Beta variant, dose sparing, vaccine immunogenicity, rats

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