mRNA vaccines encoding membrane-anchored receptor-binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 mutants induce strong humoral responses and can overcome immune imprinting (preprint)

To address the limitations of whole-spike COVID vaccines, we explored mRNA vaccines encoding membrane-anchored receptor-binding domain (RBD-TMs), each a fusion of a variant RBD, the transmembrane (TM) and cytoplasmic tail (CT) fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. In naive mice, RBD-TM mRNA vaccines against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Beta, Delta, Delta-plus, Kappa, Omicron BA.1 or BA.5, all induced strong humoral responses against the target RBD. Multiplex surrogate viral neutralization (sVNT) assays indicated broad neutralizing activity against a range of variant RBDs. In the setting of a heterologous boost, against the background of exposure to ancestral whole spike vaccines, sVNT studies suggested that RBD-TM vaccines were able to overcome the detrimental effects of immune imprinting. Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 RBD-TM booster vaccines induced serum antibodies with 12 and 22-fold higher neutralizing activity against the target RBD than their equivalent whole spike variants. Boosting with BA.1 or BA.5 RBD-TM provided good protection against more recent variants including XBB and XBB.1.5. Each RBD-TM mRNA is 28% of the length of its whole-spike equivalent. This advantage will enable tetravalent mRNA vaccines to be developed at well-tolerated doses of formulated mRNA.

Broad immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern mediated by a SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain protein vaccine (preprint)

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has fuelled the generation of vaccines at an unprecedented pace and scale. However, many challenges remain, including: the emergence of vaccine-resistant mutant viruses, vaccine stability during storage and transport, waning vaccine-induced immunity, and concerns about infrequent adverse events associated with existing vaccines. Here, we report on a protein subunit vaccine comprising the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, dimerised with an immunoglobulin IgG1 Fc domain. These were tested in conjunction with three different adjuvants: a TLR2 agonist R4-Pam2Cys, an NKT cell agonist glycolipid alpha-Galactosylceramide, or MF59 squalene oil-in-water adjuvant. Each formulation drove strong neutralising antibody (nAb) responses and provided durable and highly protective immunity against lower and upper airway infection in mouse models of COVID-19. We have also developed an RBD-human IgG1 Fc vaccine with an RBD sequence of the highly immunoevasive beta variant (N501Y, E484K, K417N). This beta variant RBD vaccine, combined with MF59 adjuvant, induced strong protection in mice against the beta strain as well as the ancestral strain. Furthermore, when used as a third dose booster vaccine following priming with whole spike vaccine, anti-sera from beta-RBD-Fc immunised mice increased titres of nAb against other variants including alpha, delta, delta+, gamma, lambda, mu, and omicron BA.1 and BA.2. These results demonstrated that an RBD-Fc protein subunit/MF59 adjuvanted vaccine can induce high levels of broad nAbs, including when used as a booster following prior immunisation of mice with whole ancestral-strain Spike vaccines. This vaccine platform offers a potential approach to augment some of the currently approved vaccines in the face of emerging variants of concern, and it has now entered a phase I clinical trial.

First Report of a Phase 1 Randomised Trial of Molecular Clamp-Stabilised Spike Protein-Based and MF59-Adjuvanted Vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background: We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of an MF59-adjuvanted subunit vaccine for COVID-19 based on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein stabilised in a prefusion conformation by a novel molecular clamp (Sclamp).Methods: Phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Australia (July 2020–ongoing; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04495933). Healthy adults (18-55 years) received two doses of placebo, 5-μg, 15-μg, or 45-μg SARS-CoV-2 Sclamp, or one 45-μg dose of SARS-CoV-2 Sclamp followed by placebo, 28 days apart (n=120; 24 per group). Safety, humoral immunogenicity (ELISA, microneutralisation, pseudovirus neutralisation), and cellular immunogenicity (antigen-specific CD4+/CD8+ T-cells, antibody-secreting cells) were assessed up to 56 days after the first dose.Findings: The SARS-CoV-2 Sclamp vaccine was very well tolerated with few systemic reactions. All two-dose regimens elicited robust, broadly neutralising humoral responses. Geometric mean titres were higher than in sera from convalescent COVID-19 patients and strongly neutralised spike variants of concern, including N501Y. Moreover, humoral and cellular responses were highly correlated. However, antibodies elicited to a peptide sequence used in the molecular clamp derived from human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) gp41 cross-reacted weakly with some HIV diagnostic screening tests.Interpretation: These first-in-human results demonstrate that a subunit vaccine comprising mammalian cell culture-derived, molecular clamp-stabilised recombinant spike protein formulated in a squalene-in-oil adjuvant elicits strong immune responses with an excellent safety profile. However, the gp41 peptide induced diagnostic interference, creates a likely barrier to widespread use and highlights the criticality of potential off-target immunogenicity during vaccine development. Studies are ongoing with alternative molecular clamp trimerisation domains to ameliorate this response.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04495933).Funding: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Government, and philanthropic sources.Declaration of Interests: KJC and DW report grants from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Queensland Government, during the conduct of the study; other from ViceBio Limited, outside the submitted work; and has patents pending (AU 2018241252; BR112019019813.0; CA 3057171; CH 201880022016.9; EP 18775234.0; IN 201917038666; ID P00201909145; IL 269534; JP 2019-553883; MX/a/2019/011599; NZ 757178; KR 0-2019-7031415; SG 11201908280S; US 16/498865). JB reports personal fees from CSL Limited, during the conduct of the study, and other from CSL Limited, outside the submitted work. WZ reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the Jack Ma Foundation, during the conduct of the study. SM-H reports grants from Canarian Foundation Doctor Manuel Morales, during the conduct of the study. KJS reports grants from the the Australian Medical Research Future Fund, during the conduct of the study. AWC reports grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund and a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Career Development Fellowship, during the conduct of the study. BDW reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Medical Research Future Fund, and the Victorian State Government, during the conduct of the study. PMH reports grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund, during the conduct of the study. DP reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the A2 Milk Foundation, and the Jack Ma Foundation, during the conduct of the study. CR reports grants from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, during the conduct of the study. PRY reports grants from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Queensland Government, during the conduct of the study; grants from ViceBio Limited, outside the submitted work; and a patent issued (US 2020/0040042). FLM, Zl, DKW, PE, JAL, STMC, NM, SA, CLH, KH, PG, LH, THON, MHT, PT, JB, PCR, SN, SC, TH, KK, KS, and TPM have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The protocol was approved by the Alfred Health Human Research Ethics Committee (2020001376/334/20).