Whole blood‐based measurement of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T cells reveals asymptomatic infection and vaccine immunogenicity in healthy subjects and patients with solid‐organ cancers
Accurate assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2 immunity is critical in evaluating vaccine efficacy and devising public health policies. Whilst the exact nature of effective immunity remains incompletely defined, SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T‐cell responses are a critical feature that will likely form a key correlate of...
Saved in:
Published in | Immunology Vol. 165; no. 2; pp. 250 - 259 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.02.2022
John Wiley and Sons Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Accurate assessment of SARS‐CoV‐2 immunity is critical in evaluating vaccine efficacy and devising public health policies. Whilst the exact nature of effective immunity remains incompletely defined, SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T‐cell responses are a critical feature that will likely form a key correlate of protection against COVID‐19. Here, we developed and optimized a high‐throughput whole blood‐based assay to determine the T‐cell response associated with prior SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and/or vaccination amongst 231 healthy donors and 68 cancer patients. Following overnight in vitro stimulation with SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific peptides, blood plasma samples were analysed for TH1‐type cytokines. Highly significant differential IFN‐γ+/IL‐2+ SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T‐cell responses were seen amongst previously infected COVID‐19‐positive healthy donors in comparison with unknown / naïve individuals (p < 0·0001). IFN‐γ production was more effective at identifying asymptomatic donors, demonstrating higher sensitivity (96·0% vs. 83·3%) but lower specificity (84·4% vs. 92·5%) than measurement of IL‐2. A single COVID‐19 vaccine dose induced IFN‐γ and/or IL‐2 SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T‐cell responses in 116 of 128 (90·6%) healthy donors, reducing significantly to 27 of 56 (48·2%) when measured in cancer patients (p < 0·0001). A second dose was sufficient to boost T‐cell responses in the majority (90·6%) of cancer patients, albeit IFN‐γ+ responses were still significantly lower overall than those induced in healthy donors (p = 0·034). Three‐month post‐vaccination T‐cell responses also declined at a faster rate in cancer patients. Overall, this cost‐effective standardizable test ensures accurate and comparable assessments of SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T‐cell responses amenable to widespread population immunity testing, and identifies individuals at greater need of booster vaccinations.
SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic continues to cause morbidity and mortality especially in vulnerable patients. Monitoring individuals T and B cell responses to the virus is desirable in high risk populations after infection and/or vaccination. This paper describes a straightforward approach on a small whole blood sample to measure these responses. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Funding information Awen Gallimore and Andrew Godkin contributed equally to this work. This work was funded by two UKRI COVID‐19 National Core Study Immunity programmes (‘Coordinating COVID‐19 asymptomatic testing programmes in university settings: providing insight on acquired immunity across the student population’ (to AnG, LF, MW and ADW), and ‘SARS‐CoV‐2 Optimal Cellular Assays’ (to AnG). Additional funding was provided by UKRI/NIHR through the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK‐CIC) (to BPM), and Cancer Research Wales (to MJS, MSS, AwG and AnG). AnG is supported by additional grant funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant code 209213/Z/17/Z). AwG is supported by additional grant funding from Cancer Research UK (grant code C16731/A21200). BPM is supported by additional funding from the UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff. WMZ is supported by a Health and Care Research Wales Fellowship from the Welsh Government. SEAB is supported by the Wales Cancer Research Centre. ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0019-2805 1365-2567 1365-2567 |
DOI: | 10.1111/imm.13433 |