Distinguishing COVID-19 infection and vaccination history by T cell reactivity

Abstract

SUMMARYSARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines elicit memory T cell responses. Here, we report the development of two new pools of Experimentally-defined T cell epitopes derived from the non-spike Remainder of the SARS-CoV-2 proteome (CD4RE and CD8RE). The combination of T cell responses to these new pools and Spike (S) were used to discriminate four groups of subjects with different SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccine status: non-infected, non-vaccinated (I−V−); infected and non-vaccinated (I+V−); infected and then vaccinated (I+V+); and non-infected and vaccinated (I−V+). The overall classification accuracy based on 30 subjects/group was 89.2% in the original cohort and 88.5% in a validation cohort of 96 subjects. The T cell classification scheme was applicable to different mRNA vaccines, and different lengths of time post-infection/post-vaccination. T cell responses from breakthrough infections (infected vaccinees, V+I+) were also effectively segregated from the responses of vaccinated subjects using the same classification tool system. When all five groups where combined, for a total of 239 different subjects, the classification scheme performance was 86.6%. We anticipate that a T cell-based immunodiagnostic scheme able to classify subjects based on their vaccination and natural infection history will be an important tool for longitudinal monitoring of vaccination and aid in establishing SARS-CoV−2 correlates of protection.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of vaccinated COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review

“…A total of 14 studies were included to analyze the effect of age. We found no statistical difference in the age of the two groups (SMD = 0.085, 95% CI = À0.073-0.189, p = 0.388, 12 Case-control study 346 1100 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ Wi 18 Case-control study 142 20 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 6☆ Tenforde 13 Case-control study 314 1669 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ Hsu 19 Case-control study 85 85 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 7☆ Blanquart 20 Case-control study 724 5459 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ Bollineni 21 Case-control study 14 56 ☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 6☆ Marincu 22 Case-control study 62 62 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 7☆ Wolff 23 Case-control study 260 507 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Kalligeros 24 Case-control study 91 824 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Fragoulis 25 Cohort study 101 60 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Trunfio 26 Cohort study 55 110 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ Safdar 27 Cohort study 45 65 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Bouton 28 Cohort study 96 329 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 7☆ Bosch 29 Case-control study 126 839 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 7☆ Christensen 30 Case-control study 3346 13,619 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Yu 31 Case-control study 23 50 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Bayhan 32 Case-control study 38 190 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Kustin 33 Case-control study 396 396 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 6☆ Toda 34 Case-control study 11 15 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Tian 4 Case-control study 88 41 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Sayed 35 Case-control study 50 70 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Lee 36 Case-control study 174 587 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Luo 37 Case-control study 484 1782 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ Puhach 38 Case-control study 139 245 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 6☆ Whittaker 39 Case-control study 716 2487 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Sanghavi 40 Case-control study 149 478 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Butt (1) 41 Case-control study 250 250 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Butt (2) 42 Case-control study 456 456 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 8☆ Spiera 43 Case-control study 88 2317 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆ 7☆ Baltas 44 Case-control study 119 476 ☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 7☆ John 45 Case-control study 254 508 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 6☆ Jacobson 46 Case-control study 189 471 ☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆ 6☆ Estofolete …”