Cutting Edge: T Cell Responses to B.1.1.529 (Omicron) SARS-CoV-2 Variant Induced by COVID-19 Infection and/or mRNA Vaccination Are Largely Preserved

  1. Mladen Jergović
  2. Christopher P Coplen
  3. Jennifer L Uhrlaub
  4. Shawn C Beitel
  5. Jefferey L Burgess
  6. Karen Lutrick
  7. Katherine D Ellingson
  8. Makiko Watanabe
  9. Janko Nikolich-Žugich

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 variant-of-concern B.1.1.529 (Omicron) exhibits a high degree of escape from Ab neutralization. Therefore, it is critical to determine how well the second line of adaptive immunity, T cell memory, performs against Omicron. To this purpose, we analyzed a human cohort (n = 327 subjects) of two- or three-dose mRNA vaccine recipients and COVID-19 postinfection subjects. We report that T cell responses against Omicron were largely preserved. IFN-γ–producing T cell responses remained equivalent to the response against the ancestral strain (WA1/2020), with some (∼20%) loss in IL-2 single or IL-2+IFN-γ+ polyfunctional responses. Three-dose vaccinated participants had similar responses to Omicron relative to post–COVID-19 participants and exhibited responses significantly higher than those receiving two mRNA vaccine doses. These results provide further evidence that a three-dose vaccine regimen benefits the induction of optimal functional T cell immune memory.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.4049/jimmunol.2200175
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.16.22269361: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Study participants: This study was approved by the University of Arizona IRB (protocol #2102460536 and #1410545697) and the Oregon Health and Science University IRB (protocol #00003007, pre-pandemic controls) and was conducted in accordance with all federal state and local regulations and guidelines.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    , Fremont, CA) and analyzed by FlowJo software (Tree Star, Ashland, OR)
    FlowJo
    suggested: (FlowJo, RRID:SCR_008520)
    Statistical analysis: Graph Pad Prism v9 was used for statistical analysis.
    Graph Pad Prism
    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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2022.01.16.22269361v1 on medRxiv