tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Exp Immunol
. 2022 May 6;uxac042.
doi: 10.1093/cei/uxac042. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of two T cell assays to evaluate T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination in naïve and convalescent healthcare workers
Eloise Phillips[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sandra Adele[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tom Malone[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Alexandra Deeks[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Lizzie Stafford[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Susan L Dobson[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ali Amini[SUP] 2 4 [/SUP], Donal Skelly[SUP] 2 5 [/SUP], David Eyre[SUP] 2 6 [/SUP], Katie Jeffery[SUP] 2 7 [/SUP], Christopher P Conlon[SUP] 2 8 [/SUP], Christina Dold[SUP] 9 10 [/SUP], Ashley Otter[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Silvia D' Arcangelo[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Lance Turtle[SUP] 3 12 [/SUP], Paul Klenerman[SUP] 1 2 4 10 [/SUP], Eleanor Barnes[SUP] 1 2 4 10 [/SUP], Susanna J Dunachie[SUP] 1 2 8 13 [/SUP], Consortium PITCH
Affiliations
Abstract
T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway.We measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay service (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. Both assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1 + 2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. The standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; T cell; infection; vaccination; virus.
. 2022 May 6;uxac042.
doi: 10.1093/cei/uxac042. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of two T cell assays to evaluate T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination in naïve and convalescent healthcare workers
Eloise Phillips[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sandra Adele[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tom Malone[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Alexandra Deeks[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Lizzie Stafford[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Susan L Dobson[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ali Amini[SUP] 2 4 [/SUP], Donal Skelly[SUP] 2 5 [/SUP], David Eyre[SUP] 2 6 [/SUP], Katie Jeffery[SUP] 2 7 [/SUP], Christopher P Conlon[SUP] 2 8 [/SUP], Christina Dold[SUP] 9 10 [/SUP], Ashley Otter[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Silvia D' Arcangelo[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Lance Turtle[SUP] 3 12 [/SUP], Paul Klenerman[SUP] 1 2 4 10 [/SUP], Eleanor Barnes[SUP] 1 2 4 10 [/SUP], Susanna J Dunachie[SUP] 1 2 8 13 [/SUP], Consortium PITCH
Affiliations
- PMID: 35522978
- DOI: 10.1093/cei/uxac042
Abstract
T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway.We measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay service (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. Both assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1 + 2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. The standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; T cell; infection; vaccination; virus.