We identify amino acid variants within dominant SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes by interrogating global sequence data. Several variants within nucleocapsid and ORF3a epitopes have arisen independently in multiple lineages and result in loss of recognition by epitope-specific T cells assessed by IFN-g and cytotoxic killing assays. Complete loss of T cell responsiveness was seen due to Q213K in the A*01:01-restricted CD8+ ORF3a epitope FTSDYYQLY 207-215 ; due to P13L, P13S, and P13T in the B*27:05-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope QRNAP-RITF 9-17 ; and due to T362I and P365S in the A*03:01/A*11:01-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope KTFPPTEPK 361-369 . CD8+ T cell lines unable to recognize variant epitopes have diverse T cell receptor repertoires. These data demonstrate the potential for T cell evasion and highlight the need for ongoing surveillance for variants capable of escaping T cell as well as humoral immunity.

No abstract

Aims Vaccine hesitancy is widely recognised as one of the most serious threats to current global health. While the causes underlying vaccine hesitancy have been extensively described and several mitigation strategies trialled amongst current and prospective parents, there is a relative scarcity of research investigating its extent and causative factors amongst university students, a critical demographic due to its temporal proximity to the average child-rearing age. The present study sought to address this literature gap by elucidating the social and demographic factors that might underpin vaccine hesitancy in university students. Subject and methods An anonymous online survey was carried out to investigate the opinions and perspectives on the practice of vaccination within undergraduate students’ social sphere. The statistical significance of the differences observed between groups of participants was analysed using non-parametric tests of variance. Results Amongst the 739 volunteers who participated in the survey, vaccine confidence varied significantly (p < 0.001) with age, ethnicity and religion, and to a lesser (yet still statistically significant) extent (p < 0.05) with graduate status. No statistically significant differences were observed with regard to gender or number of children. Conclusions By shedding new light on the factors underpinning vaccine hesitancy within undergraduate students’ social network, the present study provides a stepping stone towards the development of targeted mitigation strategies.

Background and purpose: nature-based interventions (NBI) have been shown to have positive effects on physical, psychological, social, and spiritual health. The purpose of this scoping literature review was to describe what is known regarding the cancer survivor experience in relationship to their interaction with the natural environment. Description/methods: this review was completed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The research strategy included a combination of these terms: cancer, neoplasms, nature, and forest therapy. The articles were blinded and screened by four independent researchers. A total of twelve articles were selected. Outcome/results: a total of 2786 cancer survivors participated in the twelve studies with multiple types and stages of cancer represented. The studies used multiple designs and measures. Results showed improvements in anxiety, depression, sleep, connectedness, stress, tension, confusion, fatigue, and pain. Participants reported that nature was the most important resource in coping with their cancer. Conclusions and implications: nature is beneficial for cancer survivors while they experience cancer diagnosis and treatment. Nature opportunities can be feasibly delivered with this population and need to be explored further and safely implemented to support the overall health and well-being of cancer survivors.

Previous reviews have reported virtual reality (VR) to be an effective method to treat pain. This scoping review examines the state of the science for VR and pain both generally and by pain type (acute and chronic) related to types of mechanisms, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs). We searched online databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and CINAHL from 2010 to 2020 and included studies from peer reviewed journals that examined people with pain, (excluding pain-free participants) with a primary outcome measuring pain. We assessed studies for risk of bias using PEDro criteria. We described data through counts and percentages. Significant results were determined through P-values. We found 70 studies representing 4105 people; 46 acute pain studies (65.7%), 22 chronic pain studies (31.4%), and 2 (2.9%) “both.” The most common VR mechanism was distraction (78.6%) then embodiment (17.1%). However, distraction was the mechanism for 97.8% acute pain studies while embodiment was more common for chronic pain (54.5%). Dosage of VR was inconsistently reported and varied considerably. VR treatment groups showed significant improvements in pain, particularly for intensity of pain (72.1%) and quality of pain (75.0%). Few studies examined AEs. Limitations of this review include only examining last 10 years of articles and that many studies were missing data. VR appears to be an effective intervention to address both acute and chronic pain. Research evaluating VR mechanisms, dosage, and AEs is warranted, as is further work in under-served populations (children for chronic pain and older adults) as the current evidence is largely limited to adult populations with pain.