Information

Do COVID-19 vaccines produce more spike protein than natural infection?


The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been shown to be harmful on its own.

However, a news article quoted an "expert" as saying

The spike protein components of the vaccine are not produced in the same amounts as a normal viral infection (probably a million times less)

On the other hand, I've also read that

Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection

These statements seem contradictory: I'd expect higher antibody levels in response to larger amounts of the spike protein.

So do COVID-19 vaccines produce more spike protein than natural infection?


There is also an argument that the spike proteins produced by the vaccines are localized in the muscle. I think this issue is orthogonal to the question of how much protein is produced.

It should also be noted that the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J (unlike AstraZeneca and Sputnik V) vaccines encode a defective spike protein, which may help with their safety.


Edit: The variation from person to person is a red herring. Here is why:

Let's take a person who has not had Covid or vaccine. Give him the vaccine and count the number of spike protein molecules he produces and call itx. Now, in a different scenario, take the same unvaccinated person and give him Covid. Count the number of spike protein molecules he produces and call ity.

The above claims are, respectively:

y = 1000000 x

and

y < x

We don't even comparexfrom one person toyfrom another. We could also understand them as statements about average values. There would still be a contradiction.


Is Natural Immunity or Vaccination Better?

According to Sen. Rand Paul – an ophthalmologist, not an infectious disease specialist – natural immunity is better. While not being an infectious disease expert myself, I at least know enough to fact-check before speaking. So the answer, as is frequently the case, is: it depends.

Let’s start by demonstrating the pandemic's continuing politicization with the Tweets of the Senator from Kentucky.

Perhaps a more interesting question is whether there are advantages or disadvantages to natural versus artificial, i.e., vaccinated immunity?

The short answer is that it makes no difference to our immune system. Whether the antigen is a virus or bacteria, or a snippet of same, made by man, the immune system recognizes it as foreign and “does its thing.” Its thing, of course, is to develop an immune response. That transformation occurs in the bloodstream and lymph nodes irrespective of whether the antigen got in from our nose, mouth, digestive tract, lung, or via a needle.

"However, the difference between vaccination and natural infection is the price paid for immunity" Immune System and Health Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

That said, there are a few differences. Natural immunity requires enough antigen, viral or bacterial, to be identified and cause the immune system to respond. More antigen gives a more robust response. But that response varies several-fold – a mild case involving minimal symptoms may result in more of a half-hearted natural immunization than you would hope for.

Before considering the variability of response, let’s dig into the cost of natural immunity – you have to be infected and may suffer significant consequences. When looking at a lethal disease, like COVID-19, or infection with substantial morbidity, like brain damage from measles or paralysis from polio, the cost can be quite high. Vaccines are far safer than acquiring immunity by becoming ill. That is the tradeoff underlying the fight over letting herd immunity develop naturally. Herd immunity will develop, but there are going to be a lot of deaths along the way.

For most immunities, vaccines not only are safer but produce a more robust response. This includes vaccines for HPV, tetanus, and pneumonia mumps is an exception. The other benefit of a vaccine over natural immunity is its standardization. First, unlike acquiring natural immunity, you can choose when you get vaccinated. Second, while natural immunity provokes a range of responses, vaccines are designed to create the most significant immune response without safety concerns.

For the COVID-19 vaccines, there remain two questions. How long will the immunity last? We don’t know yet, but only time will tell. Again, most vaccines confer equally long-lasting immunity. The two mRNA vaccines are targeted at the spike protein. Natural immunity can target the spike and other viral shapes, which might allow natural immunity to protect against some variants again, we do not know. What we do know is that getting your immunity by contracting COVID-19 is a crapshoot being vaccinated is exceedingly efficacious and safe.

"Because vaccines are made using parts of the viruses and bacteria that cause disease, the ingredient that is the active component of the vaccine that induces immunity is natural. However, critics point to other ingredients in vaccines or the route of administration as being unnatural."

Vaccines include three common ingredients, an adjuvant, a stabilizer, and, often, a preservative. The Pfizer vaccine contains no adjuvant you might think of the first dose priming your immune system for the second although the first confers significant immunity. Instead of a stabilizer, the mRNA is wrapped in a bit of fat with some salts and sugar, called a nanoparticle. It contains no preservatives. Moderna’s vaccine is essentially the same, differing in the elements of the nanoparticle. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine uses a different delivery method for the antigen. It makes use of an adenovirus –one that causes the common cold and that has been attenuated to cause no symptoms. It is stabilized using a sugar, and the preservative is a citrate commonly found in food.

"I believe that morally everyone must take the vaccine. It is the moral choice because it is about your life but also the lives of others."

Catholics have raised concern about the J&J product because the vaccine’s production involves using a cell line obtained from aborted fetal tissue. The initial statements by local church officials were mixed messages. In 2005 the Vatican's Pontifical Council of Life indicated that there were "Degrees of Cooperation with Evil" – that the further one was from the act of abortion, the less evil the involvement. The Pope has stated, and now the US Catholic leadership has concurred, that a devout Catholic should choose a different vaccine when given a choice. Still, when there is no choice, the Johnson & Johnson vaccination is “morally acceptable.”

But I will give the last word on the topic to ACSH friend Dr. Paul Offit – the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Source: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Safety: Immune System and Health


Interview by Brian W. Simpson | MAY㺜, 2021

Misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccines abound. Some common ones: If you’ve had COVID-19, you don’t need the vaccine. Wrong. It’s better get naturally infected than to get vaccinated. Wrong.

Virologist Sabra Klein, PhD ‘98, MS, MA, says an immense amount of data collected in a short time have made clear the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the limited immunity that comes from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Klein is co-director of a new National Cancer Institute Center of Excellence that seeks to understand more about the diversity of immune responses and how sex, age, and other factors lead some people to have longer lasting immunity than others. 

In the following Q&A, the Molecular Microbiology and Immunology professor explains the nitty gritty of vaccines, coronavirus infections, and how to best protect yourself. Spoiler alert: Klein is a big vaccine fan.

If someone has had COVID-19, why should they get vaccinated? Don’t they already have immunity?

If you’ve been infected, you have some protection. But that immunity has limits. The biggest limit is that it doesn’t last as long as we would like it to.

Studies have shown that people who have been infected can benefit significantly from vaccination. It gives them a strong, lasting immunity boost. After receiving the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, they have immunity levels comparable to those of uninfected people who have received their second dose.

We’re still trying to better understand why immunity lasts longer for some people than others. Underlying factors like obesity or age appear to play a role in how long immunity lasts.

How long does immunity last from being infected? From vaccination?

Immunity from natural infection starts to decline after 6 to 8 months. We know that fully vaccinated people still have good immunity after a year—and probably longer.

Why is it that the vaccine leads to better immunity than natural infection?

The honest truth is, we don’t know. The immune system of people who have been infected has been trained to target all these different parts of the virus called antigens. You’d think that would provide strongest immunity, but it doesn’t. The Pfizer or Moderna vaccines target just the spike protein—the part of the virus that is essential for invading cells. It’s like a big red button sitting on the surface of the virus. It’s really sticking out there, and it’s what our immune system sees most easily. By focusing on this one big antigen, it’s like you’re making our immune system put blinders on and only be able to see that one piece of the virus.

Does the severity of infection make a difference in immunity? If I had a terrible case of COVID-19 infection, will I have stronger immunity?

Absolutely. My lab here at the Bloomberg School and others have shown that people who were hospitalized, who were really sick with COVID, in many cases are believed to have greater immunity than people with less severe disease. But again, that immunity may be declining. So, even if you had a more severe case, you still should plan to get vaccinated.

Let’s talk about variants of the coronavirus. Do vaccines also provide better protection against them?

The good news is that the current vaccines recognize these variant viruses and induce excellent immunity against them. For people who were previously infected and have high immunity, they have will have pretty good recognition of these variants, but you don’t really know your level of immunity against a specific variant or how degraded your immune response may be. You might actually be susceptible to reinfection with one of these variants. You just can’t predict it. 

So, rather than flipping a coin, get vaccinated.

Some people say they would rather be infected naturally than get vaccinated. Others say they’re worried about vaccine side effects. What would you tell them?

Vaccines are tested for their safety in ways that we could never do with a natural viral infection. A lot of what’s referred to as side effects are the precise things that we experience to a greater degree when we are infected: fever, headache, malaise, gastrointestinal issues, etc. With infection, you don’t know how bad it’s going to be. By not getting vaccinated, you’re rolling the dice. You may become severely ill. You may have to be hospitalized. You may die.

There’s also the risk of long COVID. I know a teenage girl who got COVID before the vaccines were available. She didn’t have a lot of symptoms, but now she has all of the symptoms of long COVID. A year later, she is trying to maintain a somewhat normal teenage life with profound fatigue. She has never recovered fully from having COVID.

What about vaccines if you’re pregnant?

At this stage, there is no reason for a pregnant woman not to get vaccinated. We know that pregnant women are at increased risk for more severe outcomes from COVID-19. They’re more likely to be hospitalized than nonpregnant women. And we know the vaccines are safe. They’re effective. And they can, at least, reduce the severity of disease among pregnant women, resulting in improved or normal pregnancy outcomes. This idea that someone who’s pregnant should roll the dice and risk getting infected rather than getting vaccinated is not a good decision.

Brian W. Simpson, MPH ’13, is editor-in-chief of Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health magazine and Global Health NOW and director of editorial at the Bloomberg School.


MYTH: Researchers rushed the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, so its effectiveness and safety cannot be trusted.

FACT: Studies found that the two initial vaccines are both about 95% effective — and reported no serious or life-threatening side effects. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly. Here are just a few:

  • The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a method that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic.
  • China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly, so scientists could start working on vaccines.
  • The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps, but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster.
  • Vaccine projects had plenty of resources, as governments invested in research and/or paid for vaccines in advance.
  • Some types of COVID-19 vaccines were created using messenger RNA (mRNA), which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made.
  • Social media helped companies find and engage study volunteers, and many were willing to help with COVID-19 vaccine research.
  • Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the study volunteers who were vaccinated.
  • Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Email Alerts

Sign up to receive coronavirus (COVID-19) email updates from Johns Hopkins Medicine.


Which is better for developing immunity: COVID-19 vaccine or natural infection?

Share this:

Debate has raged over which provides better protection against COVID-19 — natural infection or vaccine injection?

“Sorry Dr Fauci and other fearmongers, new study shows vaccines and naturally acquired immunity DO effectively neutralize COVID variants. Good news for everyone but bureaucrats and petty tyrants!” tweeted a combative Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in March.

A large-scale study by UC Irvine researchers may definitively settle this debate. They found that, yes, natural infection provides protection, but mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna kick natural immunity’s butt in protecting against COVID-19.

“Our results show that the nucleic acid vaccines in use in this setting are remarkably effective at elevating (antibody) levels against SARS-CoV-2 antigens,” says the study, posted April 20. The level and breadth of protection induced by these mRNA vaccines “is much greater than that induced by natural infection.”

A nurse prepares Pfizer-BioNTech COIVD-19 vaccines in Riverside on April 15. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

Indeed, after the second mRNA shot, vaccinated people had antibody levels up to 10 times higher than what was found in convalescent plasma from people who recovered from natural infection, the researchers found.

Added bonus: The mRNA vaccines also allow the immune system to recognize other novel coronavirus strains, offering hope that vaccination will be effective against emerging virus variants that are circulating around the world, they said.

“This is a pretty spectacular thing,” said Philip L. Felgner, director of UC Irvine’s Vaccine Research and Development Center and Protein Microarray Laboratory and Training Facility, who was one of the researchers. “It’s not just doing something for a relatively small group of patients with uncommon disease — here we’re talking about saving the whole world.”

Hide and seek

The mRNA vaccines eclipsed natural infection at one very specific task: recognizing the precise piece of the virus’ spike protein that binds to — and infects — healthy cells.

The spike protein is big, Felgner said. And in natural infections, the virus manages to hide this vital receptor so the immune system doesn’t see it. And if the immune system doesn’t see it, it can’t develop antibodies to it.

“When a person gets infected they develop an immune response, but it’s not against this most important part,” Felgner said. “So the virus can evade the immune response that we develop, and that’s really favorable for the virus. It means it can go on out and propagate in the world, mutate itself more, make more variants.”

But that doesn’t happen with mRNA vaccines. The mRNA instructs the body to manufacture the piece of the spike protein with this otherwise-hidden receptor — which allows the body to produce antibodies to it.

Since vaccination induces a more robust immune response than natural exposure alone, those who’ve recovered from COVID may benefit from getting vaccinated, the paper found.

Scientific excitement

Outside experts were buoyed by the findings.

“I was hoping for this, and it was reflected in developmental animal data. But to actually see it work is amazing,” said Dr. Brigham C. Willis, senior associate dean for medical education at the UC Riverside School of Medicine, who was not involved.

“This represents a huge step forward in our ability to combat emerging and existing diseases. This new technology is so powerful. Now we can produce vaccines against a huge variety of disease that were heretofore impossible, and incredibly fast. The fact that it produces immunity much higher and more broadly against these difficult and mutating pathogens is huge. It will be very simple to produce boosters that include variants.

“It should also be exciting in the next couple of years, as I imagine we will now be able to produce effective vaccines against a variety of things we could not before — the common cold, perhaps flu, maybe even other things,” Willis said.

George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UC San Francisco who also was not involved in the research, said, “Vaccine-induced immunity provides much, much higher levels of neutralizing antibody, at least in the medium term.”

Next steps

The study must be peer-reviewed, Felgner said, and clinicians and public health officials should use the data to inform patients and public health policy.

Researchers are measuring how long vaccine-induced immunity lasts — to guide the timing of future booster shots — and they’ll compare the immune responses induced by different types of vaccines, such as mRNA (Moderna, Pfizer) and adenovirus delivery systems (Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca).

In one area of concern, the UCI researchers found that immune-compromised people — such as those who’ve had organ transplants and are on immune-suppressing drugs — don’t develop high antibody levels after vaccination. “We need to discover ways to boost immunity in the immune compromised,” Felgner said.

The big takeaway is that mRNA vaccine-induced antibody levels are spectacular and appear rapidly within a few days after vaccination, he said. “Only in our dreams we could have imagined a vaccine that could be developed so quickly, works so well, can be manufactured at scale, distributed and administered to billions of people worldwide within months.”

But this isn’t a scientific miracle, he said. Nucleic acid vaccination was discovered 30 years ago and has been the passion of hundreds of scientists over the decades, backed by billions of dollars of investment, including millions from the National Institutes of Health.

“It shows how we make progress in science,” Felgner said. “Sometimes people complain, ‘Why are we giving all this money to the NIH?’ A reason is, so we can be prepared like we are today to respond to this outbreak.”

The researchers used data from several different studies in Orange County of thousands of people. To detect antibody levels, they used a coronavirus antigen microarray that is the intellectual property of the Regents of the University of California and licensed for commercialization to Nanommune Inc., a private company in which Felgner and several co-authors own shares.


New mechanism discovered

Our latest work from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge has revealed a new mechanism for how N protein antibodies can protect against viral disease. We have studied another virus containing an N protein called lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus and shown a surprising role for an unusual antibody receptor called TRIM21.

Whereas antibodies are typically thought to only work outside of cells, TRIM21 is only found inside cells. We have shown that N protein antibodies that get inside cells are recognized by TRIM21, which then shreds the associated N protein. Tiny fragments of N protein are then displayed on the surface of infected cells. T cells recognize these fragments, identify cells as infected, then kill the cell and consequently any virus.

We expect that this newly identified role for N protein antibodies in protecting against virus infection is important for SARS-CoV-2, and work is ongoing to explore this further. This suggests that vaccines that induce N protein antibodies, as well as spike antibodies, could be valuable, as they would stimulate another way by which our immune response can eliminate SARS-CoV-2.

Adding N protein to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines could also be useful because N protein is very similar between different coronaviruses – much more so than the spike protein. This means it’s possible that a protective immune response against SARS-CoV-2 N protein could also offer some protection against other related coronaviruses, such as Mers.

Another potential benefit that may arise from including N protein in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is due to the low mutation rates seen in the N protein sequence. Some changes to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported over the course of this pandemic, with the most significant changes occurring in the spike protein . There is some concern that if the spike sequence alters too much, then new vaccines will be required. This could be similar to the current need for annual updating of influenza vaccines. However, as the N protein sequence is much more stable than the spike, vaccines that include a component targeting the N protein are likely to be effective for longer.

The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines brings genuine hope that this virus can be controlled by vaccination. From here it will be an ongoing quest to develop even better vaccines and ones that can remain effective in the face of an evolving virus. Future vaccines will probably focus on more than just the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, and the N protein is a promising target to add to the current strategies being considered.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .


Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines.

mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus (CMV). As soon as the necessary information about the virus that causes COVID-19 was available, scientists began designing the mRNA instructions for cells to build the unique spike protein into an mRNA vaccine.

Future mRNA vaccine technology may allow for one vaccine to provide protection for multiple diseases, thus decreasing the number of shots needed for protection against common vaccine-preventable diseases.

Beyond vaccines, cancer research has used mRNA to trigger the immune system to target specific cancer cells.


Human Antibodies Target Many Parts of Coronavirus Spike Protein

Caption: People who recovered from mild COVID-19 infections produced antibodies circulating in their blood that target three different parts of the coronavirus’s spike protein (gray). Credit: University of Texas at Austin

For many people who’ve had COVID-19, the infections were thankfully mild and relatively brief. But these individuals’ immune systems still hold onto enduring clues about how best to neutralize SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Discovering these clues could point the way for researchers to design highly targeted treatments that could help to save the lives of folks with more severe infections.

An NIH-funded study, published recently in the journal Science, offers the most-detailed picture yet of the array of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 found in people who’ve fully recovered from mild cases of COVID-19. This picture suggests that an effective neutralizing immune response targets a wider swath of the virus’ now-infamous spike protein than previously recognized.

To date, most studies of natural antibodies that block SARS-CoV-2 have zeroed in on those that target a specific portion of the spike protein known as the receptor-binding domain (RBD)—and with good reason. The RBD is the portion of the spike that attaches directly to human cells. As a result, antibodies specifically targeting the RBD were an excellent place to begin the search for antibodies capable of fending off SARS-CoV-2.

The new study, led by Gregory Ippolito and Jason Lavinder, The University of Texas at Austin, took a different approach. Rather than narrowing the search, Ippolito, Lavinder, and colleagues analyzed the complete repertoire of antibodies against the spike protein from four people soon after their recoveries from mild COVID-19.

What the researchers found was a bit of a surprise: the vast majority of antibodies—about 84 percent—targeted other portions of the spike protein than the RBD. This suggests a successful immune response doesn’t concentrate on the RBD. It involves production of antibodies capable of covering areas across the entire spike.

The researchers liken the spike protein to an umbrella, with the RBD at the tip of the “canopy.” While some antibodies do bind RBD at the tip, many others apparently target the protein’s canopy, known as the N-terminal domain (NTD).

Further study in cell culture showed that NTD-directed antibodies do indeed neutralize the virus. They also prevented a lethal mouse-adapted version of the coronavirus from infecting mice.

One reason these findings are particularly noteworthy is that the NTD is one part of the viral spike protein that has mutated frequently, especially in several emerging variants of concern, including the B.1.1.7 “U.K. variant” and the B.1.351 “South African variant.” It suggests that one reason these variants are so effective at evading our immune systems to cause breakthrough infections, or re-infections, is that they’ve mutated their way around some of the human antibodies that had been most successful in combating the original coronavirus variant.

Also noteworthy, about 40 percent of the circulating antibodies target yet another portion of the spike called the S2 subunit. This finding is especially encouraging because this portion of SARS-CoV-2 does not seem as mutable as the NTD segment, suggesting that S2-directed antibodies might offer a layer of protection against a wider array of variants. What’s more, the S2 subunit may make an ideal target for a possible pan-coronavirus vaccine since this portion of the spike is widely conserved in SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses.

Taken together, these findings will prove useful for designing COVID-19 vaccine booster shots or future vaccines tailored to combat SARS-COV-2 variants of concern. The findings also drive home the conclusion that the more we learn about SARS-CoV-2 and the immune system’s response to neutralize it, the better position we all will be in to thwart this novel coronavirus and any others that might emerge in the future.

[1] Prevalent, protective, and convergent IgG recognition of SARS-CoV-2 non-RBD spike epitopes. Voss WN, Hou YJ, Johnson NV, Delidakis G, Kim JE, Javanmardi K, Horton AP, Bartzoka F, Paresi CJ, Tanno Y, Chou CW, Abbasi SA, Pickens W, George K, Boutz DR, Towers DM, McDaniel JR, Billick D, Goike J, Rowe L, Batra D, Pohl J, Lee J, Gangappa S, Sambhara S, Gadush M, Wang N, Person MD, Iverson BL, Gollihar JD, Dye J, Herbert A, Finkelstein IJ, Baric RS, McLellan JS, Georgiou G, Lavinder JJ, Ippolito GC. Science. 2021 May 4:eabg5268.

Gregory Ippolito (University of Texas at Austin)

NIH Support: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Cancer Institute National Institute of General Medical Sciences National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences


Related Articles

“It shows how we make progress in science,” Felgner said. “Sometimes people complain, ‘Why are we giving all this money to the NIH?’ A reason is, so we can be prepared like we are today to respond to this outbreak.”

The researchers used data from several different studies in Orange County of thousands of people. To detect antibody levels, they used a coronavirus antigen microarray that is the intellectual property of the Regents of the University of California and licensed for commercialization to Nanommune Inc., a private company in which Felgner and several co-authors own shares.


New mechanism discovered

Our latest work from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge has revealed a new mechanism for how N protein antibodies can protect against viral disease. We have studied another virus containing an N protein called lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus and shown a surprising role for an unusual antibody receptor called TRIM21.

Whereas antibodies are typically thought to only work outside of cells, TRIM21 is only found inside cells. We have shown that N protein antibodies that get inside cells are recognised by TRIM21, which then shreds the associated N protein. Tiny fragments of N protein are then displayed on the surface of infected cells. T cells recognise these fragments, identify cells as infected, then kill the cell and consequently any virus.

We expect that this newly identified role for N protein antibodies in protecting against virus infection is important for SARS-CoV-2, and work is ongoing to explore this further. This suggests that vaccines that induce N protein antibodies, as well as spike antibodies, could be valuable, as they would stimulate another way by which our immune response can eliminate SARS-CoV-2.

Adding N protein to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines could also be useful because N protein is very similar between different coronaviruses – much more so than the spike protein. This means it’s possible that a protective immune response against SARS-CoV-2 N protein could also offer some protection against other related coronaviruses, such as Mers.

Another potential benefit that may arise from including N protein in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is due to the low mutation rates seen in the N protein sequence. Some changes to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported over the course of this pandemic, with the most significant changes occurring in the spike protein. There is some concern that if the spike sequence alters too much, then new vaccines will be required. This could be similar to the current need for annual updating of influenza vaccines. However, as the N protein sequence is much more stable than the spike, vaccines that include a component targeting the N protein are likely to be effective for longer.

The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines brings genuine hope that this virus can be controlled by vaccination. From here it will be an ongoing quest to develop even better vaccines and ones that can remain effective in the face of an evolving virus. Future vaccines will probably focus on more than just the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, and the N protein is a promising target to add to the current strategies being considered.


Watch the video: Hvorfor skal jeg vaccineres to gange? (December 2021).