T Cell Response following Anti-COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccination Is Maintained against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron B.1.1.529 Variant of Concern

  1. Hila Cohen
  2. Shahar Rotem
  3. Uri Elia
  4. Gal Bilinsky
  5. Itzchak Levy
  6. Theodor Chitlaru
  7. Erez Bar-Haim

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The progression of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the emergence of variants of concern (VOC), which may compromise the efficacy of the currently administered vaccines. Antigenic drift can potentially bring about reduced protective T cell immunity and, consequently, more severe disease manifestations. To assess this possibility, the T cell responses to the wild-type Wuhan-1 SARS-CoV-2 ancestral spike protein and the Omicron B.1.1.529 spike protein were compared. Accordingly, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were collected from eight healthy volunteers 4–5 months following a third vaccination with BNT162b2, and stimulated with overlapping peptide libraries representing the spike of either the ancestral or the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 virus variants. Quantification of the specific T cells was carried out by a fluorescent ELISPOT assay, monitoring cells secreting interferon-gamma (IFNg), interleukin-10 (IL-10) and interleukin-4 (IL-4). For all the examined individuals, comparable levels of reactivity to both forms of spike protein were determined. In addition, a dominant Th1 response was observed, manifested mainly by IFNg-secreting cells and only limited numbers of IL-10- and IL-4-secreting cells. The data demonstrate stable T cell activity in response to the emerging Omicron variant in the tested individuals; therefore, the protective immunity to the variant following BNT162b2 vaccination is not significantly affected.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v14020347
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.19.476497: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Blood was collected into sodium-heparin tubes (vacutainer, BD) and processed within 2 hours of collection.
    IRB: Institutional Review Board Statement: All subjects formally informed their explicit consent of participation prior to their inclusion in the study.
    Consent: Institutional Review Board Statement: All subjects formally informed their explicit consent of participation prior to their inclusion in the study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analyzed with the ImmunoSpot software version 7.0.30.2 (ImmunoSpot).
    ImmunoSpot
    suggested: None

    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.
    • 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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.19.476497v1 on bioRxiv