Study of the cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Our understanding of cellular immunity in response to COVID-19 infection or vaccination is limited because of less commonly used techniques. We investigated both the cellular and humoral immune responses before and after the administration of a third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among a group of healthcare workers. Cellular immunity was evaluated using the VIDAS interferon-gamma (IFNγ) RUO test, which enables automated measurement of IFNγ levels after stimulating peripheral blood lymphocytes. Booster doses significantly enhanced both cellular and humoral immunity. Concerning cellular response, the booster dose increased the percentage of positive IFNγ release assay (IGRA) results but no difference in IFNγ release was found. The cellular response was not associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interestingly, vaccinated and infected healthcare workers exhibited the highest levels of anti-spike and neutralizing antibodies. In conclusion, the IGRA is a simple method for measuring cellular immune responses after vaccination. However, its usefulness as a complement to the study of humoral responses is yet to be demonstrated in future research.

Evaluation of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays for monitoring patients on pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is crucial to prevent severe COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients. A reliable method is needed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for personalized monitoring during PrEP. We measured the binding antibody concentrations of 63 immunocompromised patients receiving 300mg or 600mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab on PrEP day and twice during the following 3 months. All blood samples were tested using the Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay, the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay, and live virus-based neutralization assays. The results of the two immunoassays were correlated on day 0, 1 month, and 3 months post-PrEP. Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated higher anti-S concentration values measured with the Roche immunoassay compared to those measured with the Abbott immunoassay. Antibody concentrations were higher after 600 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis than after 300 mg. The neutralizing antibody titers obtained using the omicron BA.5 and BA.2.75 strains were low. Both automated immunoassays are suitable for monitoring immunocompromised patients on PrEP.

Weaker Effects of the Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine on the Elderly Human Population.

The vaccines presently available are less effective in older people due to senescence of their immune systems. We measured the antibody responses of 42 adults living in nursing homes after the third and the fourth doses of an mRNA vaccine and found that the strain (BA.2 and BA.2.75: from 64 to 128, BA.5: from 16 to 32, BQ.1.1: from 16 to 64 among the uninfected) influenced the effect of the fourth dose of vaccine on neutralizing antibodies. The fourth dose also increased binding antibodies (from 1036 BAU/mL to 5371 BAU/mL among the uninfected, from 3700 BAU/mL to 6773 BAU/mL among the BA.5 infected). This effect was less significant than that of the third dose of vaccine for both neutralizing (BA.2: from 8 to 128, BA.5: from 2 to 16, BA.2.75: from 8 to 64, BQ.1.1: from 2 to 16) and binding antibodies (from 139.8 BAU/mL to 2293 BAU/mL). However, the fourth dose attained the 5000 BAU/mL threshold conferring approximately 80% protection against a SARS-CoV-2 BA.2 infection in most individuals, unlike the third.

Current immunoassays and detection of antibodies elicited by Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The present study aimed to determine whether current commercial immunoassays are adequate for detecting anti-Omicron antibodies. We analyzed the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response of 23 unvaccinated individuals 1-2 months after an Omicron infection. All blood samples were tested with a live virus neutralization assay using a clinical Omicron BA.1 strain and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. We assessed three anti-Spike immunoassays (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant [Abbott S], Wantaï anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody ELISA [Wantaï], Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay [Roche]) and one anti-Nucleocapsid immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay [Abbott N]). Omicron neutralizing antibodies were detected in all samples with the live virus neutralization assay. The detection rate of the Abbott S, Wantai, Roche, and Abbott N immunoassays were 65.2%, 69.6%, 86.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. The sensitivities of Abbott S and Wantai immunoassays were significantly lower than that of the live virus neutralization assay (p = 0.004, p = 0.009; Fisher's exact test). Antibody concentrations obtained with anti-S immunoassays were correlated with Omicron neutralizing antibody concentrations. These data provide clinical evidence of the loss of performance of some commercial immunoassays to detect antibodies elicited by Omicron infections. It highlights the need to optimize these assays by adapting antigens to the circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Antibody Titers and Protection against Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern has greatly influenced the immune correlates of protection, and there are little data about the antibody threshold concentrations to protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 or BA.2. We analyzed the antibody responses of 259 vaccinated healthcare workers, some of whom had been previously infected by SARS-CoV-2. The median follow-up was 179 days (IQR: 171-182) after blood collection. We detected 88 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections during the follow-up period, 55 (62.5%) with SARS-CoV-2 BA.1, and 33 (37.5%) with SARS-CoV-2 BA.2. A neutralizing antibody titer below 8 provided no protection against a BA.1 infection, a titer of 16 or 32 gave 73.2% protection, and a titer of 64 or 128 provided 78.4% protection. Conversely, the BA.2 infection rate did not vary as a function of anti-BA.2 neutralizing antibody titers. Binding antibody concentrations below 6000 BAU/mL provided no protection against Omicron BA.1 infection, 6000-20,000 BAU/mL provided 55.6% protection, and 20,000 or more provided 87.7% protection. There was no difference in BA.2 infection depending on the binding antibody concentration. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between antibody concentrations and infection with the Omicron BA.4/5 variants that are becoming predominant worldwide.

Decreased Efficiency of Neutralizing Antibodies from Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) SARS-CoV-2 Variant.

The neutralizing antibody response is a key component of adaptive immunity and a primary protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The increased transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and its capacity to cause more severe disease could be linked to a significant reduction in neutralizing antibodies generated during a previous infection or vaccination. We analyzed blood samples from 162 unvaccinated health care workers (HCWs) collected 1 to 3 months postinfection and from 263 vaccinated health care workers 1 month after the last injection. We have compared the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using two virus strains, B.1.160 and B.1.617.2 (Delta variant). Binding antibody concentrations were measured by an immunoassay. The median neutralizing antibody titer against the B.1.160 strain was 128 (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 256) and 32 (IQR, 8 to 128) against the Delta variant. To obtain a neutralizing antibody titer of 32 or 64, a binding antibody concentration of 182 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (IQR, 81 to 974) was required with the strain B.1.160, while a concentration of 2,595 BAU/mL (IQR, 1,176 to 5,353) was required with the Delta variant. Our data indicate that antibodies neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant 4 times less efficiently than they neutralize an earlier strain. Half of the HCWs had decreased protection from 94% to 76.8% or less for the same total antibody concentration. But neutralization might be correlated with other immune responses. The contributions of other responses, such as those of the T cell and B cell systems, to protection require further investigation. IMPORTANCE Recent studies showed that the neutralizing antibody titer is an important contributor to protection against SARS-CoV-2. With the emergence of new variants, the question arises of maintaining the neutralizing capacities of vaccines and/or of a past infection. We had protective data associated with total antibody concentrations and neutralizing antibody titers for a B.1.160 strain. We showed that to maintain the same levels of protection and, therefore, the same levels of neutralizing antibodies, a total antibody concentration 8.5 times greater is required with the Delta strain. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04385108.).

Evaluation of Three Quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Immunoassays.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 and caused a dramatic pandemic. Serological assays are used to check for immunization and assess herd immunity. We evaluated commercially available assays designed to quantify antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigen, either total (Wantaï SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA) or IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant on Alinity, Abbott, and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Diasorin). The specificities of the Wantaï, Alinity, and Liaison assays were evaluated using 100 prepandemic sera and were 98, 99, and 97%, respectively. The sensitivities of all three were around 100% when tested on 35 samples taken 15 to 35 days postinfection. They were less sensitive for 150 sera from late infections (>180 days). Using the first WHO international standard (NIBSC), we showed that the Wantai results were concordant with the NIBSC values, while Liaison and Alinity showed a proportional bias of 1.3 and 7, respectively. The results of the 3 immunoassays were significantly globally pairwise correlated and for late infection sera (P < 0.001). They were correlated for recent infection sera measured with Alinity and Liaison (P < 0.001). However, the Wantai results of recent infections were not correlated with those from Alinity or Liaison. All the immunoassay results were significantly correlated with the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using a live virus neutralization assay with the B1.160 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These assays will be useful once the protective anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer has been determined. IMPORTANCE Standardization and correlation with virus neutralization assays are critical points to compare the performance of serological assays designed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify their optimal use. We have evaluated three serological immunoassays based on the virus spike antigen that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a microplate assay and two chemiluminescent assays performed with Alinity (Abbott) and Liaison (Diasorin) analysers. We used an in-house live virus neutralization assay and the first WHO international standard to assess the comparison. This study could be useful to determine guidelines on the use of serological results to manage vaccination and treatment with convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies.

Alpha-internexin expression in gliomas: relationship with histological type and 1p, 19q, 10p and 10q status.

BACKGROUND: The alpha-internexin (INA) gene encodes an intermediate filament involved in neurogenesis and maps in 10q24.33. A strong INA protein expression has been reported in oligodendroglial tumours and was associated with 1p19q deletion. To assess the relevance of INA immunohistochemistry in glioma typing, this paper studied the relationship between INA expression, histological type, genomic status and patient outcome. METHODS: The study analysed INA, nestin, Olig2 and p53 expression, loss of heterozygosity of microsatellite markers from telomere to centromere of 10p, 10q, 1p and 19q chromosomes and epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) amplification in 40 gliomas (five astrocytomas, 12 oligodendrogliomas, 11 oligoastrocytomas, 12 glioblastomas). INA expression was scored as absent, weak (<10% of labelled tumour cells) or strong (>10%). RESULTS: Oligodendrogliomas showed strong INA and Olig2 expression, and 1p19q whole loss of heterozygosity (wLOH). Astrocytomas and glioblastomas were characterised by no or weak INA expression, high p53 and nestin expression, 10p10q wLOH, and epidermal growth factor receptor amplification. Most oligoastrocytomas had characteristics of astrocytic tumours. All tumours with strong INA expression retained the 10q chromosome arm and, except for one, had a 1p19q wLOH status. However, despite a strong link between INA expression, 1p19q wLOH and 10q retention, discrepancies were observed in 10% of cases. The presence of INA expression, whether weak or strong, was related to a better prognosis. CONCLUSION: INA expression study can be helpful for glioma typing and prognosis determination in combination with other markers. Nevertheless, INA immunohistochemistry cannot replace the genomic analysis to determine 1p19q and 10p10q status.