Longitudinal characterization of CD8+ T cells recognizing a dominant epitope of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 vaccinated and infected individuals
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, sparked an ongoing global pandemic. While cell-mediated immunity is crucial in mitigating the severity and eradicating viral infections, a comprehensive characterization of CD8+ T cell antigen-specificity, frequency, proliferative capacity, and TCR sequences against SARS-CoV-2 in both COVID-19 vaccinated and recovered adults remains incomplete. In this study, we embark on a longitudinal analysis of circulating CD8+ T cells targeting 10 epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein across multiple visits from donors spanning three and a half years. Utilizing multi-color flow cytometry with antigen-specific tetramers, we observed frequencies of circulating CD8+ T cells ranging from undetectable to 1% in HLA-A2+ vaccinated and infected individuals. Notably, we did not observe significant differences in spike-specific CD8+ T cell frequencies between vaccinated and infected donors. However, among vaccinated donors, we noted a decline over time in central memory T cells specific to a dominant S protein epitope, S-YLQ (S-269-277, YLQPRTFLL). Our in vitro stimulation assays revealed robust expansion of CD8+ T cells, both in percentage and magnitude, against the S-YLQ epitope compared to other epitopes in infected and vaccinated individuals. Analysis of longitudinal follow-up data spanning three years is ongoing.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Longitudinal characterization of CD8+ T cells recognizing a dominant epitope of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 vaccinated and infected individuals
- Date Crossref
- 01/05/2024
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.