Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses autoantibody reactivity post-BNT162b2 vaccination, indicating no significant changes in healthy adults.
Concerns regarding vaccine-associated autoimmunity and activation of cancer-related pathways persist, yet longitudinal proteome-wide evaluations of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens remain limited. Here, we assessed the stability of the human 'autoantibodyome' in 30 healthy adults receiving a heterologous CoronaVac-BNT162b2 vaccination regimen (inactivated-virus priming followed by an mRNA booster). Paired serum samples collected pre-vaccination and 26 weeks post-booster were analyzed using the i-Ome™ Discovery protein microarray, which measures IgG reactivity against 1,610 native human antigens associated with autoimmune and oncogenic pathways. After quality-control filtering, 534 high-confidence autoantigens were retained for downstream analysis. Across this panel, autoantibody profiles remained highly stable over time. Linear modeling with false discovery rate correction (FDR > 0.05) and receiver operating characteristic analysis (AUC 0.59-0.67) identified no statistically significant changes in autoantibody reactivity. Principal component analysis demonstrated substantial overlap between pre-vaccination and 26-week post-booster samples, indicating that no combinatorial autoantibody signature distinguished the two timepoints. In stratified analyses, mild breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection did not promote aberrant autoantibody production. Within the scope of this high-resolution 1,610-antigen platform, these findings provide proteome-wide evidence that heterologous BNT162b2 boosting after CoronaVac priming is not associated with sustained induction of IgG autoantibodies linked to autoimmune or cancer-related pathways. These findings provide proteome-wide safety evidence supporting the immunological stability of the circulating autoantibody repertoire following mixed-platform COVID-19 vaccination in healthy adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yassim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: