Deconvoluting the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2: specificity versus chance- and cognate cross-reactivity

  1. Alexander A. Lehmann
  2. Greg A. Kirchenbaum
  3. Ting Zhang
  4. Pedro A. Reche
  5. Paul V. Lehmann

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 infection takes a mild or clinically inapparent course in the majority of humans who contract this virus. After such individuals have cleared the virus, only the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunological memory can reveal the exposure, and hopefully the establishment of immune protection. With most viral infections, the presence of specific serum antibodies has provided a reliable biomarker for the exposure to the virus of interest. SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, does not reliably induce a durable antibody response, especially in sub-clinically infected individuals. Consequently, it is plausible for a recently infected individual to yield a false negative result within only a few months after exposure. Immunodiagnostic attention has therefore shifted to studies of specific T cell memory to SARS-CoV-2. Most reports published so far agree that a T cell response is engaged during SARS-CoV-2 infection, but they also state that in 20-81% of non-SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals, T cells respond to SARS-CoV-2 antigens (mega peptide pools), allegedly due to T cell cross-reactivity with coronaviruses causing Common Cold (CCC), or other antigens. Here we show that by introducing irrelevant mega peptide pools as negative controls to account for chance cross-reactivity, and by establishing the antigen dose-response characteristic of the T cells, one can clearly discern between cognate T cell memory induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. cross-reactive T cell responses in individuals who had not been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.29.402677: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.29.402677 on bioRxiv