Advertisement
Letter to the EditorImmunologyVirology Free access | 10.1172/JCI155499
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Find articles by
de Vries, R.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Find articles by van der Heiden, M. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Find articles by
Geers, D.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Find articles by
Imhof, C.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Find articles by van Baarle, D. in: JCI | PubMed | Google Scholar
1Department Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention and
3Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
4Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
5The RECOVAC-IR Collaborators are detailed in Supplemental Acknowledgments.
Address correspondence to: Debbie van Baarle, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Email: d.van.baarle@umcg.nl.
Published December 15, 2021 - More info
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
Anthony T. Tan, Nina Le Bert, Antonio Bertoletti
In the paper “Rapid measurement of SARS-CoV-2 spike T cells in whole blood from vaccinated and naturally infected individuals,” Tan et al. stress the importance of measuring multiple immunological correlates in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination (1). To avoid complex “traditional” T cell assays like interferon γ (IFN-γ) enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot (ELISpot) or activation-induced marker (AIM) flow cytometry, Tan et al. assessed the performance of a T cell test specific for SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein based on stimulation of whole blood with overlapping peptides and subsequent detection of cytokines in plasma. In vaccinated and convalescent individuals, they found that the sensitivity of the whole-blood assay is comparable to that of traditional T cell assays, concluding that this is an attractive measure of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell immunity.
Tan et al. performed their study in healthy individuals, but sensitivity and specificity of an alternative method to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells could be different in a population with low responder rates. In a recent prospective multicenter study, we performed a comprehensive comparison of the immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccination in kidney disease patients and found that kidney transplant (KTx) recipients had significantly lower SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell responses compared with controls (2). T cell responses were assessed by both commercial IFN-γ release assay (IGRA, QuantiFERON, Qiagen) and in-house-validated IFN-γ ELISpot using overlapping peptides from the S protein. In a subset of participants, we found moderate correlations between the two assays in both controls and KTx recipients. The IFN-γ ELISpot identified a T cell response in 18 out of 23 controls (78%) and 12 out of 31 KTx recipients (39%). Strikingly, 16 out of 18 (89%) responders were confirmed by IGRA in controls, whereas only 5 out of 12 (42%) responders were confirmed in KTx recipients (Figure 1).
Correlation between IFN-γ ELISpot and IGRA. Moderate correlation coefficients (R) were observed between assays in both groups. The x axis shows IGRA results (IFN-γ) in international units (IU)/mL in serum; the y axis shows ELISpot results in spot-forming colonies (SFC)/106 PBMCs. Dotted lines indicate positive cutoffs.
Although the IGRA is an accurate measure of specific T cell responses in healthy individuals in both our study and the study by Tan et al., our data indicate that T cell responses measured in whole blood of KTx recipients should be interpreted with caution. Similar results are to be anticipated in other populations with other underlying conditions or on immunosuppressive medication that lead to low T cell responses. Immunity assessed in whole blood by IGRA can be influenced by low lymphocyte counts (volume-based assay versus standardized cell input in ELISpot) or the presence of immunosuppressive medication in whole blood (3, 4). Accurate “traditional” methods to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell responses therefore remain crucial in assessing the cellular immune response, but the IGRA is an attractive alternative for a quick screen of induction of specific T cell responses in large trials.
Acknowledgments
See Supplemental Acknowledgments for consortium details. This work was supported with a grant from ZonMW, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (project number 10430072010002).
Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.
Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2021;131(24):e155499. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI155499.
See the related article at Rapid measurement of SARS-CoV-2 spike T cells in whole blood from vaccinated and naturally infected individuals.
See the related reply to the Letter to the Editor at Difference in sensitivity between SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell assays in patients with underlying conditions. Reply..