Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses

Cohort description

In February 2021, 552/1404 (39.3%) inhabitants of Weißenkirchen participated in a voluntary blood draw to have their serum tested. 54.3% of our cohort was female, the mean age was 48.6 years, and the mean BMI was 25.9 (Table 1). Inhabitants were invited to participate in our study through a public call, with no restrictions imposed. 363 subjects had participated in our previous study in June 2020 (26), enabling longitudinal analyses within this subgroup. 50.6% of this subgroup was female, the mean age was 49.2 years, and the mean BMI was 26.1 (Table 1).

Blood was used for the determination of serum levels of IgG and IgA antibodies, specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. For a subgroup of participants with IgG/IgA levels above threshold (N = 78), T cell activity was determined through quantification of interferon γ release (IGRA) by T cells, activated by a SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide mix.

Prevalence of seroconversion

In our previous study (June 2020), we measured in a different cohort from Weißenkirchen and surrounding communities that 8.5% were IgG positive, 9.0% were IgA positive, and 5.7% were both IgG and IgA positive (26). In the current study, our measurements for February 2021 indicated that 25.0% (138/552) of participants from Weißenkirchen were positive for IgG values, 23.6% (130/552) of participants were positive for IgA values, and 19.7% (109/552) were positive for both IgG and IgA (Table 1). The slight incongruence of percentage of seroconversion in the cohort of June 2020 in table 1 one compared with the published data (26) stems from the fact that in table 1 only those participants are represented who donated blood on both dates and more likely were infected. The presented data from June 2020 and February 2021 cannot be directly compared due to different cohort compositions after the first and the second peak of the pandemic. In addition, they cannot easily be extrapolated to the total population of the township, since most probably there was a recruitment bias in our study and people who suspected that they either had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or had been in contact with COVID-19 patients preferentially enrolled. Nevertheless, our data show that Weißenkirchen was heavily affected by both peaks of the pandemic, but in February 2021 was still far ahead from reaching natural herd immunity, supporting the need for the current extensive vaccination programs.

In February 2021, 10.9% (60/552) of participants stated in the questionnaire having had a prior SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR test, and for 53 (88%) of them, seroconversion could be detected through IgG or IgA positivity. As the incidence of seroconversion of 23.6-25.0% was markedly higher at that time point as predicted from the positive PCR tests, our data hint towards a significantly higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positive people in this Austrian hotspot than officially recorded. This high level of undetected cases is in line with other reports from Austria (31).

SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA levels and persistence

We previously observed that both IgG and IgA seroprevalence remained very stable in October 2020, i.e., four months after our initial study in June 2020 (27). In the current study, we were interested in the seroprevalence eight months after our initial study. The 363 participants, who donated blood both in June 2020 and February 2021, allowed us to determine the persistence of serum IgG and IgA antibodies, although the time point of infection or disease onset could not be determined in our cohort.

In June 2020, 11.6% (42/363) of participants had IgG levels above the cutoff (of 0.8 RU), compared to 23.6% (86/363) in February 2021 (Fig. 1A). Similarly, in June 2020, 12.1% (44/363) of persons had positive IgA levels, compared to 22.8% (83/363) in February 2021. Thus, the proportion of people with SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies approximately doubled within the eight months between June 2020 and February 2021, supporting our assumption that Weißenkirchen was heavily affected by the second peak of the pandemic.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 1

Immunoglobulin titers measured in June 2020 and February 2021.

Table depicting numbers of particpiants with above-threshold titers for respective Igs (A). Vertical scatter plots of IgG (B) and IgA (C) titers derived from all particpants at two time points, and of IgG (D) and IgA (E) titers from participants who tested positive in June 2020. Plots depicting IgG (F) and IgA (G) titers as in (D,E) but with lines connecting data points of each individual. Statistical analysis was performed using student’ s t-test (**p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001).

Next, we plotted the semiquantitative IgG and IgA titers for the 363 donors at both time points. For IgG titers, the mean values of the titers significantly increased from 0.69 RU (+/-0.08 RU) to 0.96 RU (+/-0.1 RU) (two-tailed t-test, p = 0.002) (Fig. 1B). IgA levels were also higher in February 2021, with 0.74 RU (+/-0.08 RU) compared to 0.48 RU (+/-0.06 RU) in June 2021 (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 1C). These data demonstrate the significant increase of antibody-based immune responses from June 2020 to February 2021 in the subgroup tested at both time points.

However, it must be noted that our conclusions about the cohort are limited by the absence of a specific date of disease onset.

Next, we were interested in determining whether this increase in IgG and IgA serum concentration in February 2021 was mainly due to new infections or to a combination of new infections plus stable or increasing antibody titers in SARS-CoV-2 participants from June 2020. Therefore, we restricted the plotting of the Ig values to participants that had been tested positive in June 2020 for IgG (42) and IgA (44), respectively. We found that IgG levels were significantly reduced by 24% from the first measurement in June 2020 to the recent measurement in February 2021 from 5.24 RU (+/-0.60 RU) to 3.97 RU (+/-0.57 RU) (p = 0.0007) (Fig. 1D). IgA levels remained stable between time points of data collection (Fig. 1E). When the same data set is plotted with connecting lines between values from the same individuals, one can observe that almost all IgG values (39/42) are reduced in February 2021 when compared to June 2020 (Fig. 1F, p < 0.0001). For IgA values, most values (33/47) are reduced or stable, whereas 30% (14/47) of the values are elevated in comparison to the first measurement in June 2020. To illustrate IgA titer development, we split the data into three bins: IgA levels > 2.5; IgA levels 1.5-2.49; IgA levels 1-1.49 (Fig. 1G, from left to right). In most participants with low IgA levels in June 2020, titers decreased between time points, while in participants with moderate to high IgA levels in June 2020, however, titers increased further. One possible explanation for the phenomenon might be an underlying re-infection, which, while rare, has been shown for 0.65% in a large longitudinal population-level observational study (32).

These data indicate that the increase in total IgG and IgA titers from the 363 persons participating in both the June 2020 and February 2021 studies (see Fig 1B, 1C) mainly stems from new infections, although the time points of disease onset could not be identified. However, even though IgG levels of participants that had already seroconverted in June 2020 (or before) are significantly reduced in February 2021, they remain well above the threshold of the applied ELSIA test over the time course of eight months. Taken together, our data show that both IgG and IgA seroprevalence persistent between June 2020 and February 2021.

The extent of the T cell response does not significantly correlate with either IgG or IgA levels

To ascertain if SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin levels and T cell responses correlate, we tested the blood of a subgroup of 78 participants for T cell activities. T cell activities were determined for participants with IgG/IgA levels above threshold at either time point, by measuring interferon γ release (IGRA) by T cells activated by a SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide mix. Six of the 78 samples (7.7%) showed an IGRA response that was higher than the maximal value of the standard curve and therefore had to be excluded in the plot. From the remaining participants, 64% (50/78) showed SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell activation, 58% (45/78) demonstrated SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG, 58% (45/78) showed SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA levels, and 44% (34/78) showed all three hallmarks of adaptive immunity (Fig. 2). The latter group should benefit from a comprehensive immune response, including humoral and cellular adaptive immunity.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 2.

Venn diagram depicting numbers of participants of the test cohort in February 2021 who had all three parameters (IgA, IgG and IGRA) measured (N=78).

When comparing SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell activities with SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral response, in 86% (43/50) of persons with active T cells, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels could be detected (Fig. 2). In contrast, only 74% (37/50) of persons with active T cells showed elevated levels SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA. To test whether SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell activities and levels of IgG and IgA may be correlated, we plotted IgG or IgA titers against the response of the interferon-γ-release assay (IGRA). When we plotted the IgG values of the remaining samples against the corresponding IGRA values, we could not find a significant correlation with the IGRA response, albeit a trend could be observed with a moderate R2 of 0.68 (Fig. 3A). In contrast, clearly no correlation was found for IgA values from the same blood samples (Fig. 3B). Although most participants with SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses show virus-specific T cell activities, the magnitudes of both responses do not significantly correlate. Thus, for a comprehensive assessment, it is advised to test both the T cell response and the seroprevalence, including IgG and IgA.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 3.

Correlation of immunoglobulin titers with IGRA response.

Plot of interferon release as a function of IgG (A) and IgA (B) titers derived from serum taken in February 2021.

Measuring SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG alone does not give a comprehensive view on immune response

One important finding of our study is that IgA titers remain more stable than IgG titers; the latter are supposed to be the carriers of long-term immune response. The literature on antibody persistence is ambiguous. For example, one study showed that IgAs against N protein and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the S protein wane within a period of four weeks (2). Our findings are consistent with data by Dan et al. who showed that S and RBD IgGs exhibited similar kinetics and were shorter lived than S IgAs. Both antibody types were still largely present in most of their subjects six to eight months after infection (5). Wang et al. further showed that IgG levels start to decline three months post symptom onset (33). Differences in the literature can be in part explained by the different antibody targeting specificities, which may also entail different stabilities, but also by the different sensitivities of the applied test systems.

Although most participants of our study with elevated SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies show specific T cell activities, we did not detect a significant correlation between the magnitudes of the humoral and T cell responses at a given time point. Few studies test the same subjects for IgGs, IgAs and the T cell response to ascertain an inter-relationship between the different immune markers. In a relatively small study with twenty subjects with mainly mild COVID-19 symptoms, a clear correlation between RBD IgGs and S-specific CD4+ T cell response was determined, and a similar correlation was found between anti-spike IgA titers and spike-specific CD4+ T cells (34). Here, we did not detect a correlation between S-specific IgA and IGRA, possibly due to differences in assay technicalities as well as differences in antibody specificities. Another study found a moderate correlation between S-specific IgG antibodies and T cell responses (35). Dan et al. determined that the ratio between CD4 cell and RBD IgGs is stable over time, however the variation was large, impeding a conclusive statement (5). They also found higher S-specific IgG values in hospitalized cases, while their T cell memory was reduced. Our data pointing stems solely from non-hospitalized subjects and thus cannot be directly compared with the hospitalized patient group of Dan’s study.

The major limitation of our study is the fact that we do not have reliable PCR test results for participants. Since this was a study with no recruitment restriction, participants self-reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infections or COVID-19 symptoms, but no PCR test was performed within our study. The percentage of patients with a known infection who do not become seropositive is low (36). As we restricted T cell analyses to a seropositive subgroup, however, we may have overseen a certain number of patients which could have shown a positive IGRA response. Furthermore, since we did not perform PCR tests, it is difficult to clearly determine the maximal period of Ig persistence in our cohort. If patients were seropositive in June, we can deduce antibody persistence of at least eight months (time between June 2020 and February 2021). Especially for patients who were infected during the first wave described in Lower Austria in February 2020, antibody persistence possibly may be extended to twelve months. Indeed, there may be a recruitment bias since people with known or suspected prior infection or prior contact with infected people, may have preferably enrolled in our study.