In silico analysis predicts a limited impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD8 T cell recognition

  1. Olga I. Isaeva
  2. Steven L.C. Ketelaars
  3. Pia Kvistborg

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, mutations have led to the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, and some of these have become prominent or dominant variants of concern. This natural course of development can have an impact on how protective the previously naturally or vaccine induced immunity is. Therefore, it is crucial to understand whether and how variant specific mutations influence host immunity. To address this, we have investigated how mutations in the recent SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest and concern influence epitope sequence similarity, predicted binding affinity to HLA, and immunogenicity of previously reported SARS-CoV-2 CD8 T cell epitopes. Our data suggests that the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 CD8 T cell recognized epitopes are not altered by variant specific mutations. Interestingly, for the CD8 T cell epitopes that are altered due to variant specific mutations, our analyses show there is a high degree of sequence similarity between mutated and reference SARS-CoV-2 CD8 T cell epitopes. However, mutated epitopes, primarily derived from the spike protein, in SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta, AY.4.2 and Mu display reduced predicted binding affinity to their restriction element. These findings indicate that the recent SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest and concern have limited ability to escape memory CD8 T cell responses raised by vaccination or prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic. The overall low impact of the mutations on CD8 T cell cross-recognition is in accordance with the notion that mutations in SARS-CoV-2 are primarily the result of receptor binding affinity and antibody selection pressures exerted on the spike protein, unrelated to T cell immunity.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.23.485487: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis was performed with GraphPad Prism (version: 8.4.2, for Windows, GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, (39)).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.03.23.485487v1 on bioRxiv