Viral targets for vaccines against COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dai L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7747004 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Viral targets for vaccines against COVID-19.
Nature reviews. Immunology 20201218 2
Vaccines are urgently needed to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to help the return to pre-pandemic normalcy. A great many vaccine candidates are being developed, several of which have completed late-stage clinical trials and are reporting positive results. In this Progress article, we discuss which viral elements are used in COVID-19 vaccine candidates, why they might act as good targets for the immune system and the implications for protective immunity. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:After about 2 years since the first detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 that resulted in a worldwide pandemic, 6.2 million deaths have been recorded. As a result, there is an urgent need for the development of a safe and effective vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Endeavors for the production of effective vaccines inexhaustibly are continuing. At present according to the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 vaccine tracker and landscape, 153 vaccine candidates are developing in the clinical phase all over the world. Some new and exciting platforms are nucleic acid-based vaccines such as Pfizer Biontech and Moderna vaccines consisting of a messenger RNA (mRNA) encoding a viral spike protein in host cells. Another novel vaccine platform is viral vector vaccine candidates that could be replicating or nonreplicating. These types of vaccines that have a harmless viral vector like adenovirus contain a genome encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which induces significant immune responses. This technology of vaccine manufacturing has previously been used in many human clinical trials conducted for adenoviral vector-based vaccines against different infectious agents, including Ebola virus, Zika virus, HIV, and malaria. In this paper, we have a review of nucleic acid-based vaccines that are passing their phase 3 and 4 clinical trials and discuss their efficiency and adverse effects.
| S-EPMC9470835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a novel coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is associated with several fatal cases worldwide. The rapid spread of this pathogen and the increasing number of cases highlight the urgent development of vaccines. Among the technologies available for vaccine development, DNA vaccination is a promising alternative to conventional vaccines. Since its discovery in the 1990s, it has been of great interest because of its ability to elicit both humoral and cellular immune responses while showing relevant advantages regarding producibility, stability, and storage. This review aimed to summarize the current knowledge and advancements on DNA vaccines against COVID-19, particularly those in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7749647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which emerged in late 2019, is a highly variable causative agent of COVID-19, a contagious respiratory disease with potentially severe complications. Vaccination is considered the most effective measure to prevent the spread and complications of this infection. Spike (S) protein-based vaccines were very successful in preventing COVID-19 caused by the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain; however, their efficacy was significantly reduced when coronavirus variants antigenically different from the original strain emerged in circulation. This is due to the high variability of this major viral antigen caused by escape from the immunity caused by the infection or vaccination with spike-targeting vaccines. The nucleocapsid protein (N) is a much more conserved SARS-CoV-2 antigen than the spike protein and has therefore attracted the attention of scientists as a promising target for broad-spectrum vaccine development. Here, we summarized the current data on various N-based COVID-19 vaccines that have been tested in animal challenge models or clinical trials. Despite the high conservatism of the N protein, escape mutations gradually occurring in the N sequence can affect its protective properties. During the three years of the pandemic, at least 12 mutations have arisen in the N sequence, affecting more than 40 known immunogenic T-cell epitopes, so the antigenicity of the N protein of recent SARS-CoV-2 variants may be altered. This fact should be taken into account as a limitation in the development of cross-reactive vaccines based on N-protein.
| S-EPMC10747980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The immune responses and mechanisms limiting symptom progression in asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear. We comprehensively characterized transcriptomic profiles, cytokine responses, neutralization capacity of antibodies and cellular immune phenotypes of asymptomatic patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection to identify potential protective mechanisms. Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients had higher counts of mature neutrophils and lower proportion of CD169+ expressing monocytes in the peripheral blood. Systemic levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were also lower in asymptomatic patients, accompanied by milder pro-inflammatory gene signatures. Mechanistically, a more robust systemic Th2 cell signature with a higher level of virus-specific Th17 cells and a weaker yet sufficient neutralizing antibody profile against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in asymptomatic patients. In addition, asymptomatic COVID-19 patients had higher systemic levels of growth factors that are associated with cellular repair. Together, asymptomatic patients mount less pro-inflammatory and more protective immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 indicative of disease tolerance. Insights from this study highlight key immune pathways that could serve as therapeutic targets to prevent disease progression in COVID-19.
2021-04-24 | GSE166424 | GEO
Project description:As of September 2021, twenty-one anti-COVID-19 vaccines have been approved in the world. Their utilization will expedite an end to the current pandemic. Besides the usual vaccine formats that include inactivated viruses (eight approved vaccines) and protein-based vaccines (four approved vaccines), three new formats have been validated: recombinant adenovirus (six approved vaccines), DNA (one approved vaccine), and messenger RNA (mRNA, two approved vaccines). The latter was the fastest (authorized in 2020 in the EU, the USA, and Switzerland). Most Western countries have reserved or use the protein vaccines, the adenovirus vaccines, and mRNA vaccines. I describe here the different vaccine formats in the context of COVID-19, detail the three formats that are chiefly reserved or used in Europe, Canada, and the USA, and discuss why the mRNA vaccines appear to be the superior format.
| S-EPMC8534873 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7283060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021. To assess VE, we calculated VE=1-RR (rate ratio), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of COVID-19 infection as the outcome, and the vaccination status as the main exploratory variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age and job types.Results13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVacvaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 infection cases happened in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVacvaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (p-value< 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need of mechanical ventilation. Nineteen SARSCoV-2 samples from nineteen HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Eighteen out of nineteen of those samples were Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variant.ConclusionsWhile both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 infection among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective even against a dominant Gamma variant.
| S-EPMC9002147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population. Methods We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS). Results During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups. Conclusions In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02795-w.
| S-EPMC9974059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients and physicians worldwide are facing tremendous health care hazards that are caused by the ongoing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Remdesivir (GS-5734) is the first approved treatment for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is a novel nucleoside analog with a broad antiviral activity spectrum among RNA viruses, including ebolavirus (EBOV) and the respiratory pathogens Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. First described in 2016, the drug was derived from an antiviral library of small molecules intended to target emerging pathogenic RNA viruses. In vivo, remdesivir showed therapeutic and prophylactic effects in animal models of EBOV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the substance failed in a clinical trial on ebolavirus disease (EVD), where it was inferior to investigational monoclonal antibodies in an interim analysis. As there was no placebo control in this study, no conclusions on its efficacy in EVD can be made. In contrast, data from a placebo-controlled trial show beneficial effects for patients with COVID-19. Remdesivir reduces the time to recovery of hospitalized patients who require supplemental oxygen and may have a positive impact on mortality outcomes while having a favorable safety profile. Although this is an important milestone in the fight against COVID-19, approval of this drug will not be sufficient to solve the public health issues caused by the ongoing pandemic. Further scientific efforts are needed to evaluate the full potential of nucleoside analogs as treatment or prophylaxis of viral respiratory infections and to develop effective antivirals that are orally bioavailable.
| S-EPMC7566896 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8282488 | biostudies-literature