Advertisement
Letter to the EditorCOVID-19 Free access | 10.1172/JCI155701
1Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
2Singapore Immunology Network, A*STAR, Singapore.
Address correspondence to: Antonio Bertoletti, Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore. Phone: 65.6601.2646; Email: antonio@duke-nus.edu.sg.
Find articles by
Tan, A.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
1Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
2Singapore Immunology Network, A*STAR, Singapore.
Address correspondence to: Antonio Bertoletti, Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore. Phone: 65.6601.2646; Email: antonio@duke-nus.edu.sg.
Find articles by
Le Bert, N.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
1Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
2Singapore Immunology Network, A*STAR, Singapore.
Address correspondence to: Antonio Bertoletti, Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857, Singapore. Phone: 65.6601.2646; Email: antonio@duke-nus.edu.sg.
Find articles by
Bertoletti, A.
in:
JCI
|
PubMed
|
Google Scholar
|
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
Rory D. de Vries, Marieke van der Heiden, Daryl Geers, Celine Imhof, Debbie van Baarle, RECOVAC-IR Collaborators
We thank Rory D. de Vries and colleagues for bringing attention to results showing that measurement of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell responses in whole blood can be influenced by variables like the presence of immunosuppressive drugs (1). This is an important point. Nevertheless, whether the influence of “environmental factors” makes the rapid cytokine release assay (CRA) performed by measuring cytokines in the plasma of blood stimulated with peptides (2) less “accurate” and less able to measure the overall SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell response is a matter of debate.
Overall, any assay designed to measure the frequency and function of T cells in vitro is performed to gauge the level of T cell response in vivo. As such, we could argue that testing SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell function directly in the whole blood of patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs (and thus in the presence of the drug) is a closer mimic of the in vivo conditions than the testing of T cells purified from whole blood with an ELISpot assay. In the latter case, the drug has been removed and as such, the assay can overestimate the real in vivo functionality of such T cells.
Van Baarle and colleagues, however, correctly pointed out that in individuals under treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, T cell assays performed in whole blood (CRA) and in isolated PBMCs (ELISpot) give different results, and thus these differences need to be correctly interpreted. The CRA using whole blood might more accurately measure the overall in vivo potency of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell responses; ELISpot or other assays performed using PBMCs (like quantification of activation-induced markers) might better quantify the numbers and the intrinsic function of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells present in such individuals.
Having said that, we should not forget that SARS-CoV-2 primarily infects cells present in the upper and lower respiratory tract and not in the blood. As such, as we argued before (3), any measurement of circulating SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells performed using either whole blood or purified circulating PBMCs has limitations and is in any case likely to represent only a distant proxy of the function and quantity of the T cells that are targeting SARS-CoV-2–infected cells in vivo and that are known to reside in tissues and in associated lymph nodes (4, 5).
Conflict of interest: ATT, NLB, and AB report a pending patent for a method to monitor SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in biological samples. AB reports personal fees from Oxford Immunotech and Qiagen.
Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2021;131(24):e155701. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI155701.
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 Letter to the Editor at Difference in sensitivity between SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell assays in patients with underlying conditions..