The BioNTech / Pfizer vaccine BNT162b2 induces class-switched SARS-CoV-2-specific plasma cells and potential memory B cells as well as IgG and IgA serum and IgG saliva antibodies upon the first immunization
We show that the vaccine induces in particular anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG1 and IgG3 as well as IgA1 and in some individuals also IgG2 and IgA2 serum Abs. In the saliva, we found no anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgA, but instead IgG Abs. Furthermore, we found SARS-CoV-2-S reactive IgG+ blood PCs and potential memory B cells as well as SARS-CoV-2-S reactive IgA+ PCs and/or potential memory B cells in some individuals.
Our data suggest that the vaccine induces a promising CD4+ T cell-dependent systemic IgG1 and IgG3 Ab response with IgG+ PCs and potential memory B cells. In addition to the systemic IgG response, the systemic IgA and saliva IgG response might help to improve a first line of defense in the respiratory tract against SARS-CoV-2 and its mutants.
To immunologist Ziv Shulman of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, the team’s data are a good sign that the vaccine is having its intended effect in people. What he finds surprising, he says, is the additional discovery of an unexpected type of spike-targeting plasmablast in the recipients’ lymph nodes. In this study, while most plasmablasts produced IgG antibodies—which circulate in the blood—a substantial portion made IgA antibodies, which are normally produced in infected mucosal tissues, such as in the gut or nose.
It’s entirely unexpected to see IgA antibodies produced after a vaccine is injected into muscle tissue in the body’s periphery—he’d only expect that for vaccines that are administered through mucosal tissues, such as the mouth or nose, says Shulman, who was not involved in the study. But their presence is a good thing. Most likely they will migrate into mucosal tissues and provide protection there—which IgG antibodies are also capable of doing, but not as efficiently. “[The IgAs] could block entry of the virus at the site where it goes into our body,” says Shulman. The exact source of those IgA-expressing plasmablasts—for instance, whether they originate from germinal center reactions induced by the vaccine or from reawakened memory immune cells from previous common cold–causing coronavirus infections—is unclear, he notes.
Pregnant women show robust immune response to coronavirus vaccines, pass antibodies to newborns
In the largest study of its kind to date, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard have found the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be highly effective in producing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in pregnant and lactating women. The study also demonstrated the vaccines confer protective immunity to newborns through breast milk and the placenta.
The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), looked at 131 women of reproductive age (84 pregnant, 31 lactating and 16 non-pregnant), all of whom received one of the two new mRNA vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna. The vaccine-induced titers — or antibody levels — were equivalent in all three groups. Reassuringly, side effects after vaccination were rare and comparable across the study participants.
“This news of excellent vaccine efficacy is very encouraging for pregnant and breastfeeding women, who were left out of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials,” said Andrea Edlow, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at MGH, director of the Edlow Lab in the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology and co-senior author of the new study. “Filling in the information gaps with real data is key — especially for our pregnant patients who are at greater risk for complications from COVID-19. This study also highlights how eager pregnant and lactating individuals are to participate in research.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, individuals who are pregnant are more likely to become severely ill with COVID-19, require hospitalization, intensive care or ventilation — and may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The team also compared vaccination-induced antibody levels to those induced by natural infection with COVID-19 in pregnancy, and found significantly higher levels of antibodies from vaccination.
Vaccine-generated antibodies were also present in all umbilical cord blood and breast milk samples taken from the study, showing the transfer of antibodies from mothers to newborns.
“We now have clear evidence the COVID vaccines can induce immunity that will protect infants,” said Galit Alter, core member of the Ragon Institute and co-senior author of the study. “We hope this study will catalyze vaccine developers to recognize the importance of studying pregnant and lactating individuals, and include them in trials. The potential for rational vaccine design to drive improved outcomes for mothers and infants is limitless, but developers must realize that pregnancy is a distinct immunological state, where two lives can be saved simultaneously with a powerful vaccine. We look forward to studying all vaccine platforms in pregnancy as they become available.”
……………
The study was also able to provide insight into potential differences between the immune response elicited by the Pfizer vaccine compared to the Moderna vaccine, finding the levels of mucosal (IgA) antibodies were higher after the second dose of Moderna compared to the second dose of Pfizer.
疫情现在出现了扑朔迷离的景象，南美和印度疫情大幅度反扑，欧洲大陆的疫情也开始恶化，就是在美国，病例数也从每日3万例，又跳到了7万例。疫苗在全世界的接种率仍然很快，美国总统已经更新了他的目标，要在上任100天内由接种一亿剂提高到2亿，按现在美国的接种速度，这是完全可以得到的。但面对现在这个局势，很多人要问，疫苗还有用吗？这疫情什么时候是个头？
看别人的分析文章头大，我还是自己来分析，就使用WHO公布的疫情和疫苗接种信息。上次发过一个分析，是用每个国家各自的高峰感染率和死亡率与最近的数据相比。那个分析受到了一些网友的批评，因为每个国家的高峰期并不一样，比如印度高峰是在去年的十月，在没用疫苗之前就下降，而且世界总体疫情有下降的趋势，那样的分析不合理。
我吸取了网友的意见。这次，以世界感染峰值出现的时间，2021年1月20日，作为起始点，最近日期（3月26日）作为计算点。比较二者之间在感染数和死亡数的差别，减率的计算公式=（1-目前数/新年数）X100%。一月二十日时，以下统计的各国都开始使用了疫苗，这以后的变化，可以反映疫苗的作用。
祖国的数据太好了，就没加入计算。我选择了接种数大于900万，或接种率大于20%的国家。另外，特意加入了加拿大，我的居住国，和南非，一个病毒变种横行，经历了疫苗品种变化的国家。
表的格式在文学城没有调节按钮，只能变成图贴上来，凑合着看吧！
全球的感染和死亡的峰值由表可见现在都有了大幅度的下降。这不光是疫苗的作用，与天气，防护措施都有关，也与自然群体免疫有关。这个数据，在分析中作为对照值，也就是如果降率和世界总体降率类似，不算有效降低。
最无可争议的还是以色列。以色列出过几个对照的研究，用科学的方法证明了辉瑞疫苗的有效性。从表上可见，以色列迄今的数据仍然很好。其两剂接种率已达51.93%，接近70%的群体免疫阈值了，如果加上其本身的自然免疫者（得过新冠的），已经接近群体免疫水平。还有一个规模小点的地区，直布罗陀，接种辉瑞疫苗已高于70%，目前连续零感染率死亡率，已经重新开放。以色列和直布罗陀的经验表明，至少对于辉瑞疫苗，是完全可以达到群体免疫的，以色列也有不少的病毒变种，辉瑞疫苗似乎可以克服它们。这个大方向不容置疑，前途是绝对光明的。
美国最近的感染率有了反弹，但总体趋势，疫情还是减缓的。1月20日美国还没到峰值，以后感染数到过每日27万，如果按峰值计算，感染率有80%左右的降幅。3月26日后的死亡数降到500以下，这也说明美国疫情，特别是重症率有继续转好的趋势。美国CDC发表了对照试验结果，以科学的方法证明了mRNA疫苗在真实世界的可靠有效性。美国的反弹，主要原因可能还是美国人爱自由的毛病又犯了，很多人不注意防护，另外病毒变种的蔓延也是一个原因。但美国的高接种率和国家的高效率，又是mRNA疫苗的生产国，这是它的优势。只要继续加快接种，尽快达到群体免疫，前途还是光明的。美国本身有巨大的自然免疫人群，再加上供给有保证的优秀疫苗，相信美国能以自己的方法战胜疫情！
以20日为准，英国完成第一次接种的人数为2763万人，相当于全体国民的40%，上表的数据是两剂接种率。英国的疫苗，四分之三是阿斯利康疫苗，四分之一是辉瑞疫苗。英国疫情的明显改善，是对阿斯利康疫苗的一个有力支持。由于英国病毒变种横行，这为南非临床试验失败的阿斯利康疫苗拉回了一票，这证明至少对英国变种，疫苗是有效的。英国的数据还提示，一次接种也是很有用的，英国人有接近一半接种了一次，就产生了如此大的效果。加拿大最近采取了延长两剂之间时间的做法，以期用有限的疫苗达到更大的群体免疫范围，按英国的经验，是有科学根据的。
南非曾爆出阿斯利康疫苗对南非变种无效的消息，但自从使用了辉瑞疫苗后，虽然接种率并不高，但感染和死亡数有了明显的降低。这是个令人高兴，也令人困惑的现象。具体的原因，由于信息还不充分，无法断明，但至少说明，辉瑞疫苗对南非变种不是无效的。
加拿大是基本使用mRNA疫苗的国家，最近感染率有了回升，有人称来了第三波。从数据分析，我认为主要原因还是接种率不够，按第一剂也只刚过10%。加拿大的死亡率明显降低，特别是老人院的死亡率降低到零，这是疫苗有用的很有说服力的一个证据。但美加感染率回升的情况，似乎也提示ｍRNA 疫苗防传染的能力不如其防重症的能力。
无论是美国的mRNA疫苗，还是英国的阿斯利康腺病毒疫苗，都在实际应用中展示了明显的保护作用。但这类新型疫苗，产生的抗体比较特异性，一旦病毒出现变异，可能就会失效。目前还没有证据证明，新型疫苗可以诱导细胞免疫。新型疫苗都是在体内诱导免疫，可能不会产生可以阻断粘膜接触的IgA,从而使得疫苗无法防止传染和被传染。还有，新型疫苗无法激发人体最强大的非特异免疫系统（innate immune）。这些都使得新型疫苗可能不那么强大，适应性也不太好，需要在实践中加以改进。这是新事物常会出现的问题。
俄国的感染率出现了下降，但死亡率下降还不如世界平均水平。俄国是第一个声明疫苗成功的，还取了Sputnik的名，去年7月就说要接种了，怎么迄今才接种了那么一点人口？这说明俄国的组织能力和国家意志都有了减退，已不复昔日苏联雄风了。
表中有一系列国家出现了恶化，既有发展中国家巴西，印度，土耳其，智利，也有发达国家法国，意大利。它们的疫苗接种数都接近或超过了千万，接种的都不是mRNA疫苗，或者是中国的，或者是阿斯利康的，以下着重分析疫苗与疫情的关系。
基本使用中国疫苗的阿联酋（UAE），其数据不是太好，感染降率只和世界平均水平相若，虽然其接种率很高了。但同样基本使用中国疫苗的印尼，感染率和死亡率都有了下降，虽然不是很明显。而在主要使用中国疫苗的土耳其和智利，数据有了明显的恶化。目前依此无法判断中国疫苗的有效性，但由于mRNA疫苗已经奇货可居，而且其储存和运输要求较高，中国疫苗还是填补了空缺，中国甚至把疫苗拿来当武器。虽然疫苗不太好，但你还得低下身子人家才会给！
世界目前出货量最大的阿斯利康疫苗，问题不断，数据也扑朔迷离。主要使用阿斯利康的印度，法国意大利和巴西，都出现了大幅度的疫情恶化。尽管如此，阿斯利康还是奇货可居，欧盟和美国还禁止其境内的阿斯利康疫苗出口。
就病毒的变异而言，有疫苗但接种不充分，比完全没疫苗更糟糕。那样，病毒在一个有生存压力的环境下，激活了其试错效率，而突破免疫阻扰的新变种，又有足够的生存空间供其成长壮大。这就是发生在那些目前打了疫苗但疫情反弹的国家的情况。威胁不在于那些已知的变种的扩散，而是在不充分免疫情况下，新的更致命变种的出现和成长。
综上，我认为目前的疫情数据说明：ｍＲＮＡ疫苗是有效的，群体免疫是可以实现的，问题是要尽快接种达到群体免疫阈值。无法判断中俄疫苗和阿斯利康疫苗的有效性，如果可能，在这些疫苗无效的地方，还是换上实践证明有效的mRNA疫苗。
中俄疫苗和阿斯利康疫苗，因为正反的例子的有，很难判断其效果。现在各国，包括美加，都把疫情反弹的原因归于病毒变种，那也是有道理的。如此看来，新冠可能无法终于一役，而是一个需要连续作战的系列战斗。应对疫情的策略应该是：在那些已经被压制住的地方，加速接种，尽快造成群体免疫，原来用什么疫苗，继续那种疫苗，比如在美加英以等国。同时尽快研究针对新变种的疫苗，FDA应该简化程序。mRNA和腺病毒疫苗变起来都方便，应该在新接种中加入针对新变种的混合抗原，给那些恶化的地区接种。新冠的结局可能像流感一样，病毒不断地出现变种，人类不断地改进疫苗。容易改变抗原性的新型疫苗的问世是上帝的安排，但疫苗的广泛接种不仅需要疫苗的供应，也需要组织施打，这客观上需要国际合作。
美国在亚洲出于地缘政治，提出了一个合作计划。有效，价廉的强生腺病毒疫苗，在亚洲由美国出让专利，印度生产，日本澳大利亚提供资金和运输储存，免费提供给亚太发展中国家。美国国会在讨论放弃新冠疫苗的专利，供全世界合法仿制。如果能做到这点，那是对世界的一个巨大的贡献！但这还不够，抗击疫情不应该只服务于地缘政治目的，只要有一个地方疫情没扑灭，那地球上任何地方都是不安全的。美国不光要和印度合作，也应该和中国合作！
全世界应该团结起来，美国出让专利（美国国会已经在讨论了），中国应利用其强大的生产和组织能力，加入到新疫苗的生产和运输中，就像当年美苏合作接种天花疫苗一样，全球合力掐死病魔！如果中美针对这个计划进行竞争，看谁能更好地向世界提供帮助，那是一个对世界抗疫有利的良性的竞争，那样才能在病毒新变种横行之前征服之！
团结万岁，消灭新冠病毒！
The BioNTech / Pfizer vaccine BNT162b2 induces class-switched SARS-CoV-2-specific plasma cells and potential memory B cells as well as IgG and IgA serum and IgG saliva antibodies upon the first immunization
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.10.21252001v1
We show that the vaccine induces in particular anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG1 and IgG3 as well as IgA1 and in some individuals also IgG2 and IgA2 serum Abs. In the saliva, we found no anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgA, but instead IgG Abs. Furthermore, we found SARS-CoV-2-S reactive IgG+ blood PCs and potential memory B cells as well as SARS-CoV-2-S reactive IgA+ PCs and/or potential memory B cells in some individuals.
Our data suggest that the vaccine induces a promising CD4+ T cell-dependent systemic IgG1 and IgG3 Ab response with IgG+ PCs and potential memory B cells. In addition to the systemic IgG response, the systemic IgA and saliva IgG response might help to improve a first line of defense in the respiratory tract against SARS-CoV-2 and its mutants.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/pfizer-vaccine-induces-immune-structures-key-to-lasting-immunity--68594
Unexpected, valuable antibody types discoveredTo immunologist Ziv Shulman of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, the team’s data are a good sign that the vaccine is having its intended effect in people. What he finds surprising, he says, is the additional discovery of an unexpected type of spike-targeting plasmablast in the recipients’ lymph nodes. In this study, while most plasmablasts produced IgG antibodies—which circulate in the blood—a substantial portion made IgA antibodies, which are normally produced in infected mucosal tissues, such as in the gut or nose.
It’s entirely unexpected to see IgA antibodies produced after a vaccine is injected into muscle tissue in the body’s periphery—he’d only expect that for vaccines that are administered through mucosal tissues, such as the mouth or nose, says Shulman, who was not involved in the study. But their presence is a good thing. Most likely they will migrate into mucosal tissues and provide protection there—which IgG antibodies are also capable of doing, but not as efficiently. “[The IgAs] could block entry of the virus at the site where it goes into our body,” says Shulman. The exact source of those IgA-expressing plasmablasts—for instance, whether they originate from germinal center reactions induced by the vaccine or from reawakened memory immune cells from previous common cold–causing coronavirus infections—is unclear, he notes.
你的帖子，一如既往，有太多的想象和推测。
IgA 和IgG,M抗原性是一样的，只是价位的不同，用同样的方法可以检验出来，通常是在唾液中检测，我相信任何一家疫苗公司在早期试验中都做过，如果有，一定会报道的。这篇文章只是提出了一个发现，既需要peer重复使用的证实，即使证实了，没有实用性，也就没有什么价值了，发表的科学论文90%都是没什么价值的
COVID-19 vaccine protects mothers — and their newborns
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/03/study-shows-covid-19-vaccinated-mothers-pass-antibodies-to-newborns/
Pregnant women show robust immune response to coronavirus vaccines, pass antibodies to newbornsIn the largest study of its kind to date, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard have found the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be highly effective in producing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in pregnant and lactating women. The study also demonstrated the vaccines confer protective immunity to newborns through breast milk and the placenta.
The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), looked at 131 women of reproductive age (84 pregnant, 31 lactating and 16 non-pregnant), all of whom received one of the two new mRNA vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna. The vaccine-induced titers — or antibody levels — were equivalent in all three groups. Reassuringly, side effects after vaccination were rare and comparable across the study participants.
“This news of excellent vaccine efficacy is very encouraging for pregnant and breastfeeding women, who were left out of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials,” said Andrea Edlow, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at MGH, director of the Edlow Lab in the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology and co-senior author of the new study. “Filling in the information gaps with real data is key — especially for our pregnant patients who are at greater risk for complications from COVID-19. This study also highlights how eager pregnant and lactating individuals are to participate in research.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, individuals who are pregnant are more likely to become severely ill with COVID-19, require hospitalization, intensive care or ventilation — and may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The team also compared vaccination-induced antibody levels to those induced by natural infection with COVID-19 in pregnancy, and found significantly higher levels of antibodies from vaccination.
Vaccine-generated antibodies were also present in all umbilical cord blood and breast milk samples taken from the study, showing the transfer of antibodies from mothers to newborns.
“We now have clear evidence the COVID vaccines can induce immunity that will protect infants,” said Galit Alter, core member of the Ragon Institute and co-senior author of the study. “We hope this study will catalyze vaccine developers to recognize the importance of studying pregnant and lactating individuals, and include them in trials. The potential for rational vaccine design to drive improved outcomes for mothers and infants is limitless, but developers must realize that pregnancy is a distinct immunological state, where two lives can be saved simultaneously with a powerful vaccine. We look forward to studying all vaccine platforms in pregnancy as they become available.”
……………
The study was also able to provide insight into potential differences between the immune response elicited by the Pfizer vaccine compared to the Moderna vaccine, finding the levels of mucosal (IgA) antibodies were higher after the second dose of Moderna compared to the second dose of Pfizer.
只要查一下文献就知道了。別总凭想象，胡说八道。
美国疾控中心最新研究结果，对近4千名一线工作人员追踪13周，每周测核酸，证明mRNA疫苗能预防无症状感染，即疫苗有效保护人体被再次感染。结合风城黑鹰博文所说的华盛顿大学研究“发现了意外的有价值的抗体类型-IgA”，强烈提示mRNA疫苗可能使机体的黏膜免疫系统也被激活了。两方的结果相呼应，华大的研究为CDC的观察结果提供了可能的理论基础。重大利好消息，相信科学家马上会有进一步深入研究，以最终确定是否黏膜免疫真的被mRNA疫苗激活以及激活机制。结果如何，值得期待！
不要在意网上的评论。有些人确实是素质低下，也有些人则是专门找茬。另外，你所建议的和中国合作，这固然是理论上正确的，但从过去一段时间发生的事情来看，中国对外部世界特别是美欧等西方国家是怀着深深的敌意的。在这种情况下，合作是与狼共舞。
我不反对你的文章，你花时间分析总结数据值得点赞。
我认为还应当从多个角度观察正反方面的例举，才能更准确地得出结论。
比如南非和沙特，百人接种疫苗的总针数分别为：0.39%和11.48%，沙特的疫情控制得很好，人口是邻国以色列的近4倍，阳性率不到1%，南非从1月初的32.6%降到现在的4.6%。这两国的疫情控制显然不全是疫苗的功效。
现在全世界打了5.2亿针疫苗，总体疫情却呈明显的上升趋势，用你的理论如何解释？不会说是中国疫苗造成的吧？
新发感染数虽然这一段时间呈上升趋势，但总数还是比峰值低，而死亡率即使在美加也是持续走低的。美国和以色列有过对照试验，很有说服力。死亡率持续减低，说明抗重症能力较强，这也是疫苗的一个重要作用，得个轻症或无症状新冠并非大不了的事。
目前发生在南美，印度和欧洲大陆的现象，可能用新变种来解释最方便了。换疫苗是可以想到的第一个选择，如果它们能像中国一样做，也肯定有益。
我同意你关于沙特和南非的疫情的改善，似乎不是由于疫苗引起的。也许，自由主义的国家依赖疫苗，专制主义的国家依赖管制，是一个解决方法吧
我认为他的数据分析和解读还是有益的
“无论是美国的mRNA疫苗，还是英国的阿斯利康腺病毒疫苗，都在实际应用中展示了明显的保护作用。但这类新型疫苗，产生的抗体比较特异性，一旦病毒出现变异，可能就会失效。目前还没有证据证明，新型疫苗可以诱导细胞免疫。新型疫苗都是在体内诱导免疫，可能不会产生可以阻断粘膜接触的IgA,从而使得疫苗无法防止传染和被传染。还有，新型疫苗无法激发人体最强大的非特异免疫系统（innate immune）。这些都使得新型疫苗可能不那么强大，适应性也不太好，需要在实践中加以改进。这是新事物常会出现的问题。”
涉及三个疫苗有关的生物学知识。
1. 疫苗对变异可能无效。这个是胡猜。
俺以前至少写过三个帖子，以发表论文数据，讲了美国迄今所用三种疫苗对现已发现的变异株有效。LZ的推测不成立。
https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/health/958838.html
https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/health/957049.html
https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/health/953680.html
2. “目前还没有证据证明，新型疫苗可以诱导细胞免疫”，更是无据之谈。
美国所用三种疫苗都能诱导细胞免疫。专业文章比比皆是，自己去查。
3. IgA之说。见俺上面的回帖。
还有一句，值得商榷：“新型疫苗无法激发人体最强大的非特异免疫系统（innate immune）”。
请问疫苗属于那种免疫呢？不说新型疫苗，迄今为止的所有疫苗，哪一个能激发“innate immune”？
这种不求甚解，凭想象胡编乱造的文章，有什么科学性、专业性。
说穿了，就是新闻联播或政府工作会议的发言稿。