Large clones of pre-existing T cells drive early immunity against SARS-COV-2 and LCMV infection.

We analyzed the dynamics of the earliest T cell response to SARS-COV-2. A wave of TCRs strongly but transiently expand during infection, frequently peaking the same week as the first positive PCR test. These expanding TCR CDR3s were enriched for sequences functionally annotated as SARS-COV-2 specific. Most epitopes recognized by the expanding TCRs were highly conserved between SARS-COV-2 strains, but not with circulating human coronaviruses. Many expanding CDR3s were also present at high precursor frequency in pre-pandemic TCR repertoires. A similar set of early response TCRs specific for lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus epitopes were also found at high frequency in the pre-infection naive repertoire. High frequency naive precursors may allow the T cell response to respond rapidly during the crucial early phases of acute viral infection. One-Sentence SummaryHigh frequency naive precursors underly the rapid T cell response during the crucial early phases of acute viral infection.

Comparison of two T cell assays to evaluate T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination in naive and convalescent healthcare workers

BackgroundT cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. MethodsWe measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) in an observational cohort study, using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. ResultsBoth assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1+2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. ConclusionThe standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.

Towards Internationally standardised humoral Immune Correlates of Protection from SARS CoV 2 infection and COVID-19 disease

Precision monitoring of antibody responses during the COVID-19 pandemic is increasingly important during large scale vaccine rollout and rise in prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC). Equally important is defining Correlates of Protection (CoP) for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Data from epidemiological studies and vaccine trials identified virus neutralising antibodies (Nab) and SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific (notably RBD, and S) binding antibodies as candidate CoP. In this study, we used the World Health Organisation (WHO) international standard to benchmark neutralising antibody responses and a large panel of binding antibody assays to compare convalescent sera obtained from: a) COVID-19 patients; b) SARS-CoV-2 seropositive healthcare workers (HCW) and c) seronegative HCW. The ultimate aim of this study, was to identify biomarkers of humoral immunity that could be used as candidate CoP in internationally accepted unitage. Whenever suitable, the antibody levels of the samples studied were expressed in International Units (INU) for virus neutralisation assays or International Binding Antibody Units (BAU) for ELISA tests. In this work we used commercial and non-commercial antibody binding assays; a lateral flow test for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG / IgM; a high throughput multiplexed particle flow cytometry assay for SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N) and Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) proteins); a multiplex antigen semi-automated immuno-blotting assay measuring IgM, IgA and IgG; a pseudotyped microneutralisation test (pMN) and electroporation-dependent neutralisation assay (EDNA). Our results indicate that overall, severe COVID-19 patients showed statistically significantly higher levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralising antibodies (average 1029 IU/ml) than those observed in seropositive HCW with mild or asymptomatic infections (379 IU/ml) and that clinical severity scoring, based on WHO guidelines was tightly correlated with neutralisation and RBD / S binding assays. In addition, there was a positive correlation between severity, N-antibody assays and intracellular virus neutralisation.

Extended interval BNT162b2 vaccination enhances peak antibody generation in older people

ObjectivesTo assess the relative immunogenicity of standard or extended interval BNT162b2 vaccination. DesignPopulation based cohort study comparing immune responses 2 weeks after the second vaccine, with appropriate time-matched samples in participants who received standard or extended interval double vaccination. SettingPrimary care networks, Birmingham, UK. December 2020 to April 2021. Participants172 people aged over 80 years of age. All donors received the BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination and were vaccinated with either a standard 3 week interval between doses or an extended interval schedule. Main outcome measuresPeak quantitative spike-specific antibody and cellular immune responses. ResultsIn donors without evidence of previous infection the peak antibody response was 3.5-fold higher in donors who had undergone delayed interval vaccination. Cellular immune responses were 3.6-fold lower. ConclusionPeak antibody responses after the second BNT162b2 vaccine are markedly enhanced in older people when this is delayed to 12 weeks although cellular responses are lower. Extended interval vaccination may therefore offer the potential to enhance and extend humoral immunity. Further follow up is now required to assess long term immunity and clinical protection. What is already known on this topicThe BNT162b2 vaccine is highly effective against Covid-19 infection and was delivered with a 3-week time interval in registration studies. However, this interval has been extended in many countries in order to extend population coverage with a single vaccine. It is not known how immune responses after the second dose are influenced by delaying the second vaccine. What this study addsWe provide the first assessment of immune responses in the first 14 weeks after standard or extended interval BNT162b2 vaccination and show that delaying the second dose acts to strongly boost the peak antibody response in older people. The extended interval vaccination may offer a longer period of clinical protection. This information will be of value in optimizing vaccine regimens and help guide guide vaccination policies.

Characterising heterogeneity and sero-reversion in antibody responses to mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cohort study using time series analysis and mechanistic modelling

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 serology is used to identify prior infection at individual and at population level. Extended longitudinal studies with multi-timepoint sampling to evaluate dynamic changes in antibody levels are required to identify the time horizon in which these applications of serology are valid, and to explore the longevity of protective humoral immunity. MethodsHealth-care workers were recruited to a prospective cohort study from the first SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in London, undergoing weekly symptom screen, viral PCR and blood sampling over 16-21 weeks. Serological analysis (n=12,990) was performed using semi-quantitative Euroimmun IgG to viral spike S1 domain and Roche total antibody to viral nucleocapsid protein (NP) assays. Comparisons were made to previously reported pseudovirus neutralising antibody measurements. FindingsA total of 157/729 (21.5%) participants developed positive SARS-CoV-2 serology by one or other assay, of whom 31.0% were asymptomatic and there were no deaths. Peak Euroimmun anti-S1 and Roche anti-NP measurements correlated (r=0.57, p<0.0001) but only anti-S1 measurements correlated with near-contemporary pseudovirus neutralising antibody titres (measured at 16-18 weeks, r=0.57, p<0.0001). By 21 weeks follow-up, 31/143 (21.7%) anti-S1 and 6/150 (4.0%) anti-NP measurements reverted to negative. Mathematical modelling suggested faster clearance of anti-S1 compared to anti-NP (median half-life of 2.5 weeks versus 4.0 weeks), earlier transition to lower levels of antibody production (median of 8 versus 13 weeks), and greater reductions in relative antibody production rate after the transition (median of 35% versus 50%). InterpretationMild SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with heterogenous serological responses in Euroimmun anti-S1 and Roche anti-NP assays. Anti-S1 responses showed faster rates of clearance, more rapid transition from high to low level production rate and greater reduction in production rate after this transition. The application of individual assays for diagnostic and epidemiological serology requires validation in time series analysis. FundingCharitable donations via Barts Charity Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for ["antibody" OR "serology"] AND ["SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19"]. The available literature highlights widespread use of serology to detect recent SARS-CoV-2 infection in individual patients and in population epidemiological surveys. Antibody to virus spike protein S1 domain is widely reported to correlate with neutralising antibody titres. The existing assays have good sensitivity to detect seroconversion within 14 days of incident infection, but the available longitudinal studies have reported variable rates of decline in antibody levels and reversion to undetectable levels in some people over 3 months. High frequency multi-time point serology data for different antibody targets or assays in longitudinal cohorts from the time of incident infection to greater than 3 months follow up are lacking. Added value of this studyWe combine detailed longitudinal serology using the Euroimmun anti-S1 and Roche anti-nucleocapsid protein (NP) assays in 731 health care workers from the time of the first SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in London, UK. In 157 seroconverters (using either assay) we show substantial heterogeneity in semiquantitative antibody measurements over time between individuals and between assays. Mathematical modelling of individual participant antibody production and clearance rates in individuals with at least 8 data points over 21 weeks showed anti-S1 antibodies to have a faster clearance rate, earlier transition from the initial antibody production rate to lower rates, and greater reduction in antibody production rate after this transition, compared to anti-NP antibodies as measured by these assays. As a result, Euroimmun anti-S1 measurements peaked earlier and then reduced more rapidly than Roche anti-NP measurements. In this study, these differences led to 21% anti-S1 sero-reversion, compared to 4% anti-NP sero-reversion over 4-5 months. Implications of all of the available evidenceThe rapid decline in anti-S1 antibodies measured by the Euroimmun assay following infection limits its application for diagnostic and epidemiological screening. If generalisable, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that anti-S1 mediated humoral immunity may not be sustained in some people beyond the initial post-infective period. Further work is required to understand the mechanisms behind the heterogeneity in antibody kinetics between individuals to SARS-CoV-2. Our data point to differential mechanisms regulating humoral immunity against these two viral targets.