Defining the correlates of protection necessary to manage the COVID-19 pandemic requires the analysis of both antibody and T cell parameters, but the complexity of traditional tests limits virus-specific T cell measurements. We tested the sensitivity and performance of a simple and rapid SARS-CoV-2 spike protein–specific T cell test based on the stimulation of whole blood with peptides covering the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, followed by cytokine (IFN-γ, IL-2) measurement in different cohorts including BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals (n = 112), convalescent asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients (n = 130), and SARS-CoV-1–convalescent individuals (n = 12). The sensitivity of this rapid test is comparable to that of traditional methods of T cell analysis (ELISPOT, activation-induced marker). Using this test, we observed a similar mean magnitude of T cell responses between the vaccinees and SARS-CoV-2 convalescents 3 months after vaccination or virus priming. However, a wide heterogeneity of the magnitude of spike-specific T cell responses characterized the individual responses, irrespective of the time of analysis. The magnitude of these spike-specific T cell responses cannot be predicted from the neutralizing antibody levels. Hence, both humoral and cellular spike–specific immunity should be tested after vaccination to define the correlates of protection necessary to evaluate current vaccine strategies.
Anthony T. Tan, Joey M.E. Lim, Nina Le Bert, Kamini Kunasegaran, Adeline Chia, Martin D.C. Qui, Nicole Tan, Wan Ni Chia, Ruklanthi de Alwis, Ding Ying, Jean X.Y. Sim, Eng Eong Ooi, Lin-Fa Wang, Mark I-Cheng Chen, Barnaby E. Young, Li Yang Hsu, Jenny G.H. Low, David C. Lye, Antonio Bertoletti
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 1,635 | 314 |
256 | 79 | |
Figure | 571 | 9 |
Table | 56 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 76 | 6 |
Citation downloads | 87 | 0 |
Totals | 2,681 | 408 |
Total Views | 3,089 |
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.