Reduced cross-protective potential of Omicron compared to ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccines against potentially zoonotic coronaviruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the importance of vaccines and preparedness against viral threats crossing species barriers. In response, a worldwide vaccination campaign targeting SARS-CoV-2 was implemented, which provides some cross-protective immunological memory to other coronavirus species with zoonotic potential. Following a vaccination regimen against SARS-CoV-2 spike in a preclinical mouse model, we were able to demonstrate the induction of neutralizing antibodies towards multiple human ACE2 (hACE2)-binding Sarbecovirus spikes. Importantly, compared to vaccines based on the SARS-CoV-2 Reference strain, vaccines based on Omicron spike sequences induced drastically less broadly cross-protective neutralizing antibodies against other hACE2-binding sarbecoviruses. This observation remained true whether the vaccination regimens were based on protein subunit or mRNA / LNP vaccines. Overall, while it may be necessary to update vaccine antigens to combat the evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus for enhanced protection from COVID-19, Reference-based vaccines may be a more valuable tool to protect against novel coronavirus zoonoses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".