Isabelle Nel , Ajeeva Ithayakumar , Noémie Blumenthal , Charlotte Duneton , Valérie Guérin-El Khourouj , Jérôme Viala , Catherine Dollfus , Véronique Baudouin , Sophie Guilmin-Crepon , Ioannis Theodorou , Guislaine Carcelain
{"title":"Strategies to determine positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory T lymphocyte response during the evolution of an epidemic","authors":"Isabelle Nel , Ajeeva Ithayakumar , Noémie Blumenthal , Charlotte Duneton , Valérie Guérin-El Khourouj , Jérôme Viala , Catherine Dollfus , Véronique Baudouin , Sophie Guilmin-Crepon , Ioannis Theodorou , Guislaine Carcelain","doi":"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>During SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the assessment of immune protection of people at risk of severe infection was an important goal. The appearance of VOCs (Variant of Concern) highlighted the limits of evaluating immune protection through the humoral response. While the humoral response partly loses its neutralizing activity, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory T cell response strongly cross protects against VOCs becoming an indispensable tool to assess immune protection. We compared two techniques available in laboratory to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory T cell response in a cohort of infected or vaccinated patients with different levels of risk to develop a severe disease: the ELISpot assay and the T-Cell Lymphocyte Proliferation Assay respectively exploring IFNγ production and cell proliferation. We showed that the ELISpot assay detected more anti-Spike memory T cell response than the Lymphocyte Proliferation Assay. We next observed that the use of two different suppliers as antigenic source in the ELISpot assay did not affect the detection of anti-Spike memory T cell response. Finally, we explored a new approach for defining the positivity threshold, using unsupervised mixed Gaussian modeling, challenging the traditional ROC curve used by the supplier. That will be helpful in endemic situation where it could be difficult to recruit “negative” patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of immunological methods","volume":"531 ","pages":"Article 113712"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000978/pdfft?md5=9d26956e717f00130e70ab4fbc05bb8e&pid=1-s2.0-S0022175924000978-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of immunological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000978","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
During SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the assessment of immune protection of people at risk of severe infection was an important goal. The appearance of VOCs (Variant of Concern) highlighted the limits of evaluating immune protection through the humoral response. While the humoral response partly loses its neutralizing activity, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory T cell response strongly cross protects against VOCs becoming an indispensable tool to assess immune protection. We compared two techniques available in laboratory to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory T cell response in a cohort of infected or vaccinated patients with different levels of risk to develop a severe disease: the ELISpot assay and the T-Cell Lymphocyte Proliferation Assay respectively exploring IFNγ production and cell proliferation. We showed that the ELISpot assay detected more anti-Spike memory T cell response than the Lymphocyte Proliferation Assay. We next observed that the use of two different suppliers as antigenic source in the ELISpot assay did not affect the detection of anti-Spike memory T cell response. Finally, we explored a new approach for defining the positivity threshold, using unsupervised mixed Gaussian modeling, challenging the traditional ROC curve used by the supplier. That will be helpful in endemic situation where it could be difficult to recruit “negative” patients.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Immunological Methods is devoted to covering techniques for: (1) Quantitating and detecting antibodies and/or antigens. (2) Purifying immunoglobulins, lymphokines and other molecules of the immune system. (3) Isolating antigens and other substances important in immunological processes. (4) Labelling antigens and antibodies. (5) Localizing antigens and/or antibodies in tissues and cells. (6) Detecting, and fractionating immunocompetent cells. (7) Assaying for cellular immunity. (8) Documenting cell-cell interactions. (9) Initiating immunity and unresponsiveness. (10) Transplanting tissues. (11) Studying items closely related to immunity such as complement, reticuloendothelial system and others. (12) Molecular techniques for studying immune cells and their receptors. (13) Imaging of the immune system. (14) Methods for production or their fragments in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
In addition the journal will publish articles on novel methods for analysing the organization, structure and expression of genes for immunologically important molecules such as immunoglobulins, T cell receptors and accessory molecules involved in antigen recognition, processing and presentation. Submitted full length manuscripts should describe new methods of broad applicability to immunology and not simply the application of an established method to a particular substance - although papers describing such applications may be considered for publication as a short Technical Note. Review articles will also be published by the Journal of Immunological Methods. In general these manuscripts are by solicitation however anyone interested in submitting a review can contact the Reviews Editor and provide an outline of the proposed review.