Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Immune Monitoring in Critical Care Patients Using Whole Blood Assays
Published on: September 20, 2024
BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine-Induced Immune Response in Oral Fluids and Serum
Chaminda Jayampath Seneviratne1, Preethi Balan1, Ruklanthi de Alwis2
1Singapore Oral Microbiomics Initiative, National Dental Research Institute Singapore, National Dental Centre Singapore; Oral Health ACP, Duke NUS Medical School, Singapore.
Objectives:
The COVID-19 vaccine is currently being administered worldwide to address the ongoing pandemic. Although these vaccines have proven effective in preventing severe disease, the level of immunity required to prevent respiratory mucosal infection remains less well understood. Therefore, it is desirable to develop a noninvasive screening strategy such as oral fluid to monitor secreted antibodies longitudinally as potential surrogates of mucosal immunity.
Methods:
We evaluated the anti-spike protein antibodies in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and saliva and compared them to immune responses in the blood of 50 healthy health care workers following 2 doses of intramuscular Pfizer/BioNTech-BNT162b2 vaccine.
Results:
The antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike and subdomain proteins (RBD, S1, S2, and NTD) were significantly higher in serum than oral fluids but showed a greater detection rate and higher median titres in GCF than saliva. For all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens, IgG in GCF (as opposed to saliva) showed a more significant and stronger correlation with IgG in serum. Serum-neutralising antibodies (Nab) titres also displayed a significant and stronger correlation with anti-spike protein and their subdomains in GCF than saliva. Interestingly, the time post-second dose of vaccine and sex had a similar influence on IgG in serum and GCF. However, interferon (IFN)-γ-producing T-cell responses showed no association with SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies in serum, GCF, or saliva and neutralisation antibodies in serum. The correlation matrix of all measured parameters grouped serum and GCF IgG parameters separately from salivary IgG parameters indicating that GCF better represents the humoural response in serum than saliva.
Conclusions:
Within limitations, we propose that GCF could be a less invasive alternative to serum and more appropriate than saliva to detect antibody responses by current COVID-19 vaccines if the GCF collection procedure could be standardised. Further research is needed to investigate the suitability of GCF for community immune surveillance for vaccines.
