Consecutive mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 reinforced both innate and adaptive immune responses. However, it remains unclear whether the enhanced innate immune responses are mediated by epigenetic regulation and, if so, whether these effects persist. Using mass cytometry, RNA-Seq, and ATAC-Seq, we show that BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination upregulated antiviral and IFN-stimulated gene expression in monocytes with greater effects after the second vaccination than those after the first vaccination. Transcription factor–binding motif analysis also revealed enriched IFN regulatory factors and PU.1 motifs in accessible chromatin regions. Importantly, although consecutive BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinations boosted innate immune responses and caused epigenetic changes in isolated monocytes, we show that these effects occurred only transiently and disappeared 4 weeks after the second vaccination. Furthermore, single-cell RNA-Seq analysis revealed that a similar gene signature was impaired in the monocytes of unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome. These results reinforce the importance of the innate immune response in the determination of COVID-19 severity but indicate that, unlike adaptive immunity, innate immunity is not unexpectedly sustained even after consecutive vaccination. This study, which focuses on innate immune memory, may provide novel insights into the vaccine development against infectious diseases.
Yuta Yamaguchi, Yasuhiro Kato, Ryuya Edahiro, Jonas N. Søndergaard, Teruaki Murakami, Saori Amiya, Shinichiro Nameki, Yuko Yoshimine, Takayoshi Morita, Yusuke Takeshima, Shuhei Sakakibara, Yoko Naito, Daisuke Motooka, Yu-Chen Liu, Yuya Shirai, Yasutaka Okita, Jun Fujimoto, Haruhiko Hirata, Yoshito Takeda, James B. Wing, Daisuke Okuzaki, Yukinori Okada, Atsushi Kumanogoh
Usage data is cumulative from February 2024 through February 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 2,084 | 671 |
215 | 95 | |
Figure | 386 | 19 |
Supplemental data | 102 | 12 |
Citation downloads | 72 | 0 |
Totals | 2,859 | 797 |
Total Views | 3,656 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.