Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institute, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0258041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258041. eCollection 2021.
Numerous assays evaluating serological and cellular responses have been developed to characterize immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. Serological assays are both cost- and time-effective compared to cellular assays, but cellular immune responses may provide a diagnostic value to determine previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in seronegative individuals. However, potential cross-reactive T cell responses stemming from prior encounters with human coronaviruses (HCoVs) may affect assay specificity. In this study, we evaluated the specificity and sensitivity of a SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ Release Assay (IGRA) based on the FluoroSpot method employing commercially available SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide pools, as well as an in-house designed SARS-CoV-2 peptide pool restricted to 5 amino acid stretches or less aligning with endemic HCoVs. Blood samples were obtained from healthcare workers (HCW) 5-6 months post SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) IgG and nucleocapsid (N) IgG dual seroconversion (n = 187) and HCW who had been S IgG and N IgG dual seronegative at repeated occasions, including the current sampling time point (n = 102). In addition, samples were obtained 4 to 5 months post infection from 55 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Assay specificity and sensitivity were calculated with serology as a reference standard for HCW. The in-house generated peptide pool displayed a specificity of 96.1%, while the commercially available peptide pools displayed specificities of 80.4% and 85.3%, respectively. Sensitivity was higher in a cohort of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients (96.4% and 84.0% for the commercially available peptide pools and 92.7% for the in-house generated peptide pool) compared to the HCW cohort (92.0% and 66.8% for the commercially available peptide pools and 76.0% for the in-house generated peptide pool). Based on these findings, the individual diagnostic value of T cell immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 currently appears to be limited but remain an important research tool ahead.
已经开发出许多评估血清学和细胞反应的检测方法,用于描述针对 SARS-CoV-2 的免疫反应。与细胞检测相比,血清学检测具有成本效益和时间效益,但细胞免疫反应可能提供诊断价值,以确定血清阴性个体以前的 SARS-CoV-2 感染。然而,源自先前与人冠状病毒(HCoV)接触的潜在交叉反应性 T 细胞反应可能会影响检测方法的特异性。在这项研究中,我们评估了基于 FluoroSpot 方法的 SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ 释放检测(IGRA)的特异性和敏感性,该方法使用市售的 SARS-CoV-2 特异性肽池,以及针对与地方性 HCoV 对齐的 5 个氨基酸长度或更短的 SARS-CoV-2 肽池。从 SARS-CoV-2 刺突(S)IgG 和核衣壳(N)IgG 双血清转化后 5-6 个月的医护人员(HCW)(n=187)和反复出现 S IgG 和 N IgG 双血清阴性的 HCW 中获得血液样本,包括当前采样时间点(n=102)。此外,从 55 名经聚合酶链反应(PCR)确认的 COVID-19 患者中获得感染后 4 至 5 个月的样本。使用血清学作为 HCW 的参考标准计算检测方法的特异性和敏感性。内部生成的肽池显示出 96.1%的特异性,而市售的肽池分别显示出 80.4%和 85.3%的特异性。在先前住院的 COVID-19 患者队列中,敏感性更高(市售肽池为 96.4%和 84.0%,内部生成的肽池为 92.7%)与 HCW 队列相比(市售肽池为 92.0%和 66.8%,内部生成的肽池为 76.0%)。基于这些发现,针对 SARS-CoV-2 的 T 细胞免疫反应的个体诊断价值目前似乎有限,但仍然是一个重要的研究工具。