• István Vályi-Nagy, Zsolt Matula, Márton Gönczi, Szabolcs Tasnády, Gabriella Bekő, Marienn Réti, Éva Ajzner, and Ferenc Uher.
• Department of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Central Hospital of Southern Pest, National Institute of Hematology and Infectious Diseases, Budapest, 1097, Hungary.
• Geroscience. 2021 Oct 1; 43 (5): 2321-2331.

AbstractIn the present study, humoral and T cell-mediated immune responses elicited by BBIBP-CorV (inactivated virus) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based) vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 virus were compared. Convalescent volunteers were also investigated to evaluate adaptive immunity induced by live virus. Although both vaccines induced antibody- and T cell-mediated immune responses, our analysis revealed significant quantitative and qualitative differences between the two types of challenges. The BBIBP-CorV vaccine elicited antireceptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG, as well as anti-spike protein (S) IgG and IgA antibodies in healthy individuals, the levels of which were much lower than after BNT162b2 vaccination but still higher than in the convalescent patients. The cumulative IFNγ-positive T cell response, however, was only twofold higher in participants injected with BNT162b2 compared to those who were primed and boosted with BBIBP-CorV vaccine. Moreover, the inactivated virus vaccine induced T cell response that targets not only the S but also the nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins, whereas the mRNA vaccine was able to elicit a much narrower response that targets the S protein epitopes only. Thus, the pattern of BBIBP-CorV-induced T cell response in virus-naive participants was similar to the cell-mediated anti-SARS-CoV-2 response observed in convalescent patients. Based on these data, we can conclude that the BBIBP-CorV inactivated virus vaccine is immunologically effective. However, the duration of BBIBP-CorV-induced integrated, antibody, and T cell-mediated, immune responses needs further investigation.© 2021. The Author(s).

10 keywords...

hide…