Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
As reviewed by us recently,1 an increasing number of studies suggest that the gut microbiota is an important regulator of immune responses to vaccination. Consistent with these data, several recent clinical studies,2–4 including three published in Gut,5–7 uncover correlations between the composition of the faecal/gut microbiota and antibody responses to different COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, recent antibiotic usage has also been associated with a lower seroconversion rate following BNT162b2 vaccination.8 These studies suggest that the gut microbiota plays a significant role in regulating optimal immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines. Despite these important studies, the causal and mechanistic links between the gut microbiota and responses to COVID-19 vaccines remain to be elucidated.
To investigate these links, we turned to two well-established models used previously to assess the relationship between the gut microbiota and responses to vaccination; antibiotic-treated and germ-free (GF) mice.9–11 We first assessed Spike-specific and receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific IgG responses (online supplemental material 1) in BNT162b2-vaccinated antibiotics treated (ABX) mice, relative to vaccinated untreated (No ABX) SPF mice (two 3 µg doses intramuscular injection (i.m.) 2 weeks apart). Despite significant depletion of the gut microbiota at the time of primary vaccination (online supplemental figures S1A), Spike/RBD-specific IgG responses were not significantly different between ABX and No ABX mice before, or after, the secondary vaccination (figure 1A-B, online supplemental figures S1B). Next, we assessed T cell cytokine responses following in vitro stimulation with an overlapping Spike peptide pool at 6 weeks postboost. While CD4+ T cells demonstrated minimal cytokine secretion (online supplemental figures S1C-D), CD8+ T cells mounted robust Spike-specific recall responses, however, there was no significant difference in cytokine secretion between ABX and No ABX mice (figure 1C-D).
Supplemental material
Supplemental material
Supplemental material
We next considered that complete depletion of the gut microbiota in GF mice might have a greater impact on immune responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine. We therefore assessed Spike-specific IgG responses in BNT162b2-vaccinated GF mice in comparison to conventional SPF mice and GF mice that were recolonised via a faecal microbiota transplant (FMT). As we observed in ABX mice, total IgG responses to vaccination were not significantly impaired in GF mice (figure 1E-F). There was also no significant difference in the number of Spike-specific IgG antibody secreting cells recovered from the spleen and bone marrow at 6 weeks post-boost (figure 1G-H). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the pseudovirus (Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron) neutralising capacity of BNT162b2-induced antibodies at 2 weeks postboost (online supplemental figures S1E-F). Interestingly, there may be some differences in class switching in GF relative to SPF mice, as IgG1 and IgG2c responses were significantly higher and lower, respectively, in GF mice at specific time points postvaccination (online supplemental figures S1G-H). At most time points, however, there were no significant differences between GF and SPF mice.
The number and proportion of germinal centre B (GCB) and T follicular helper (Tfh) cells in the vaccine-draining iliac lymph node (iliLN) were also not significantly different in GF, compared with SPF mice, at 2 weeks postboost (online supplemental figures S1I-L). In the spleens of GF mice, however, there was a significant increase in the frequency and number of total GCB but not Tfh cells, relative to SPF mice (online supplemental figures S1M-N). Spike-specific CD8+ T cell responses were also assessed by intracellular cytokine staining and were not significantly different in GF mice (figure 1I-J). Finally, the magnitude of the CD8+ T cell response to vaccination was assessed using Spike539-546 tetramers. This analysis revealed no significant differences in the frequency and number of Spike-specific T cells in the spleen 6 weeks postboost (figure 1K-L), or in the number of Spike-specific CD8+ T cells recovered from the peripheral blood, lungs, or vaccine-draining lymph nodes (online supplemental figure S1O).
We hypothesised that the microbiome might play a more important role in immune responses to lower doses of BNT162b2, so we repeated the experiments vaccinating mice with a lower dose (two 1 µg doses i.m., 2 weeks apart) (online supplemental figures S2A-B). Spike/RBD-specific IgG titers in GF mice were not significantly different compared with SPF mice, though interestingly IgG responses were impaired in FMT mice at 6 weeks postboost, but not at earlier time points (online supplemental figures S2C-D). There were no significant differences in the total number or proportion of GCB or Tfh cells in the vaccine-draining lymph nodes (online supplemental figures S2E-F). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in Spike-specific T cell cytokine recall responses (online supplemental figures S2G-H) or in the number/proportion of Spike539-546-specific CD8+ T cells recovered from the spleen, lungs, or vaccine-draining lymph nodes (online supplemental figures S2I-K). Similar results were observed when ABX and No ABX mice were vaccinated with two 0.2 µg doses (data not shown).
Supplemental material
In summary, our study comprehensively assesses antibody and T cell responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in ABX-treated, GF, FMT and conventional SPF mice. Surprisingly, given both preclinical data showing impaired responses to other vaccines in similar models9–11 and the recent clinical studies outlined above, antibody and T cell responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine were not significantly impaired in either GF or antibiotic-treated mice. While our data demonstrate that, in mice, the microbiota is not required for optimal B or T cell responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine they do not preclude the possibility that specific microbes in the human microbiota could influence immune responses to this vaccine in humans. Our data do, however, emphasise the need for further research to prove that associations between the gut microbiota and immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines are causal and not simply correlative.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Prashiba Thavarajadeva for providing clinically surplus BNT162b2 vaccine for this study. We thank Mariah De Virgilio, Samay Trec, Anna Acuna, and the SAHMRI Bioresources/PIRL facility staff for assistance with mouse husbandry and breeding. We would also like to thank Randall Grose and Jarrad Goyne for assistance with flow cytometry. We are grateful to Tee Yee Chern, Alice Han and Rosemarijn Van Der Sterre for assistance with the experiments. We thank the NIH Tetramer Core Facility for providing Spike539-546 tetramers.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
TN and MAL are joint first authors.
X @davidjohnlynn
Contributors TN and MAL are joint first authors. DJL conceived of the study. MAL and TN performed the germ-free mouse experiments. TN performed the T cell assays and flow cytometry. MAL performed the ELISAs. CR performed the study in ABX mice under the guidance of TN, MAL and DJL. RAB and AA performed pseudovirus neutralisation assays. GP and PH provided access to clinically surplus BNT162b2 vaccine. DJL wrote the manuscript with significant input from all authors.
Funding This study was funded by an EMBL Australia Group Leader Award to DJL.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.