A long interval between priming and boosting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine doses enhances B cell responses with limited impact on T cell immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Spacing the first two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines beyond 3-4 weeks raised initial concerns about vaccine efficacy. While studies have since shown that long-interval regimens induce robust antibody responses, their impact on B and T cell immunity is poorly known. Here, we compare in SARS-CoV-2 naïve donors B and T cell responses to two mRNA vaccine doses administered 3-4 versus 16 weeks apart. After boost, the longer interval results in higher magnitude and a more mature phenotype of RBD-specific B cells. While the two geographically distinct cohorts present quantitative and qualitative differences in T cell responses at baseline and after priming, the second dose led to convergent features with overall similar magnitude, phenotype and function of CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses at post-boost memory timepoints. Therefore, compared to standard regimens, a 16-week interval has a favorable impact on the B cell compartment but minimally affects T cell immunity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".