Abstract
Background Coronavirus disease COVID-19 has spread worldwide extremely rapidly. Although many individuals have been infected and have cleared the virus, developing virus-specific antibodies and effector/memory T cells, an important question still to be answered is what levels of T cell and antibody responses are sufficient to protect from the infection.
Methods In 5,340 Moscow residents, we evaluated the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG titers and the frequencies of the T cells specific to the nucleocapsid, membrane, and spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2, using IFNγ ELISpot, and we also evaluated the fractions of virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells using intracellular staining of IFNγ and IL2 followed by flow cytometry. Furthermore, we analyzed the post-inclusion COVID-19 rates as a function of the assessed antibody and T cell responses using the Kaplan-Meyer estimator method.
Results We showed that T cell and antibody responses are closely interconnected and commonly are induced concurrently. Individuals positive for both antibody and T cell immunities demonstrated the highest levels of protectivity against the SARS-CoV-2 infection, indistinguishably from individuals with antibody response only. Meanwhile, individuals with T cell response only demonstrated slightly higher protectivity than individuals without both types of immunity, as measured from N-protein–specific or CD4+IL2+ T cells. However, these individuals were characterized by higher IgG titers than individuals without any immunity, although the titers were below the seropositivity cut-off.
Conclusions The results of the study indicated the advantage of serology testing over the analysis of T cell responses for the prediction of SARS-CoV-2 infection rates on a populational level.
Introduction
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel member of the Betacoronavirus genus, was identified as a causative agent of a new disease (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) in December 2019 in China 1. Since that, COVID-19 became a worldwide pandemic accounting for over 190 millions of detected cases with a total number of deaths exceeding four million. Significant fractions of the populations in many countries have been infected and cleared the virus. Exposure of individuals to the virus or its individual antigens (in the case of vaccination) triggers an immune response including the development of virus-specific effector and memory T cells and the release of antibodies which recognize and bind epitopes from SARS-CoV-2 proteins. It has been shown that IgGs recognizing the coronavirus spike (S) protein possess virus-neutralizing ability, suggesting that these antibodies could protect from reinfection 2-4. In addition, convalescent patients were shown to generate SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells, which also can contribute to rapid viral clearance and protection from reinfection 5-7. However, the levels of the antibody and T cell responses vary considerably from person to person and decrease substantially over time. These facts raise an important question: what levels of T cell response and IgG titers are sufficient to protect a person from the infection? The definitive answer to this question can be obtained at the population level from measurements of the immune responses in a large group of individuals followed by tracing of the infection rates in this group.
To find a link between the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response/T cell immunity and protection against the infection, we conducted a prospective study based on the evaluation of the virus-specific Ig levels and fractions of the virus-specific T cells in 5,340 Moscow residents. Specifically, we evaluated the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG titers and the frequencies of the T cells specific to nucleocapsid (N), membrane (M), and S proteins of SARS-CoV-2, using IFNγ ELISpot. Furthermore, we assessed the fractions of the virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells using intracellular staining of IFNγ and IL2 followed by flow cytometry. Finally, we analyzed the post-inclusion COVID-19 rates as a function of the assessed antibody and T cell response levels.
Here, we report that specific T cell response strongly correlates with the antibody response. However, in a number of individuals only one of these two types of response could be detected. The presence of the antibody-only response was sufficient to protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In contrast, the T cell response alone seems to be insufficient for significant protection. We showed that antibody titers correlated with the protection level, and this correlation was significant even at the low titers of antibodies which are considered to be below the cut-off in the standard clinical tests. These results have important implications for public health policy concerning development of recommendations for clinical testing and re-vaccination of individuals who were earlier vaccinated or diagnosed with COVID-19.
Materials and methods
Ethics
This study was approved by the Moscow City Ethics Committee of the Research Institute of the Organization of Health and Healthcare Management and performed according to the Helsinki Declaration. All participants provided their written informed consent. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04898140).
Participant inclusion
The study cohort consists of individuals above 18 years old who had voluntarily come to one of four Moscow City Clinics for routine testing for COVID-19 antibodies and agreed to participate in the study. No specific inclusion or exclusion criteria beyond age were applied. After providing the written informed consent, the individuals hand-filled a questionnaire containing information about their demographics, health, marital and social status, and self-estimated previous COVID-19 status or possible contacts with COVID-19 positive individuals.
Study subjects observation
Information about individuals’ medical histories in relation to COVID-19 pandemics was obtained from the Moscow State COVID-19 Observation registry, which contains information about all individuals who have been tested positive for COVID-19 by means of either PCR or serology tests, who have participated in one of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical studies, or who were vaccinated against COVID-19 with an approved vaccine. This registry also contains information about the dates when the patients were diagnosed for COVID-19, the types of treatment they received, and the outcomes of the disease. This information was used both for analysis of the data from the individuals who were SARS-CoV-2–positive prior to inclusion in the study and for identification of the individuals who were infected later.
Blood collection and PBMC isolation
Peripheral blood was collected into two 8-mL VACUTAINER® CPT™ tubes with sodium citrate (BD, USA) and was processed within two hours after venipuncture. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated according to the manufacturer’s standard protocol by centrifugation at 1,800–2,000g for 20 min with slow brake at room temperature (RT). After centrifugation, an aliquot of blood plasma was collected into a 1.5-mL microcentrifuge tube and stored at –20 °C or lower, while PBMC were collected into a 15-mL conical tube, washed twice with phosphate buffered saline (PBS, PanEco, Russia) with EDTA at 2 mM (PanEco, Russia), counted, and used for IFNγ ELISpot assay and flow cytometry with intracellular cytokine immunostaining. PBMC with a viability level ≥70% were taken into the study. For serum isolation, peripheral blood was collected into S-Monovette 7.5-mL Z tubes (Sarstedt, Germany).
SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies and virus-neutralizing activity of plasma
We evaluated the titers of the virus-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in blood serum using an automated CL-series chemiluminescent immunoassay analyzer with compatible reagent kits (Mindray, China); here and below ‘IgG’ and ‘IgM’ refer to results obtained with this method, if not mentioned otherwise. For a separate representative group of participants, we measured antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins using the SARS-CoV-2-IgG-EIA-BEST ELISA kit (Vector-Best, Russia) and the automated ARCHITECT i1000SR analyzer with compatible reagent kit (Abbott, USA), respectively, according to the manufacturer’s standard protocol; additionally, we measured the virus-neutralizing activity of plasma by microneutralization assay using SARS-CoV-2 (hCoV-19/Russia/Moscow_PMVL-1/2020) in a 96-well plate and a 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID50) of 100 as described in 4, with plasma dilutions of 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, and 1,280 times.
Flow cytometry
PBMC were plated into 96-well U-bottom plates at a concentration of 1×106 cells per well in 100 µL of serum-free AIM-V medium (ThermoFisher Scientific; USA) supplemented with 1X AlbuMAX (ThermoFisher Scientific; USA), 2 mM L-glutamine, 50 μg/mL streptomycin, and 10 μg/mL gentamicin. The cells were stimulated with a mixture of SARS-CoV-2 PepTivator S, S1, S+, N, and M peptide pools (each 1 μg/mL, Miltenyi Biotec, Germany) for 3 h; then brefeldin A (BrA, Merck, Germany) was added to a final concentration 10 μg/mL. An equal amount of BrA was added to non-stimulated negative control cells, as well as to positive control cells stimulated with ionomycin at 1 µM (Merck, Germany) and phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (Merck, Germany) at 40 nM for 2 h. After the BrA addition, the plates were incubated for 14–16 h at 37 °C in 5% CO2 atmosphere, and then the cells were washed with PBS, blocked with 5% normal mouse serum (NMS, Capricorn Scientific, Germany), and stained with anti-CD45-PerCP (clone HI30, BioLegend, USA), anti-CD3-APC (clone OKT3, BioLegend, USA), anti-CD4-FITC (clone OKT4, BioLegend, USA), and anti-CD8a-PE (clone HIT8a, BioLegend, USA) conjugates for 15 min, washed with PBS, and fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde (Merck, Germany) at 4 °C for 20 min. After fixation, the cells were washed with 0.2% saponin in PBS (Merck, Germany), blocked with 5% NMS, and stained with anti-IFNγ-PE/Cy7 (clone 4S.B3, BioLegend; USA) and anti-IL2-APC/Cy7 (clone MQ1-17H12, BioLegend; USA) conjugates for 40 min in 0.2% saponin in PBS. We analyzed stained cells using FACSCanto, FACSCanto II, FACSCAria SORP (BD Biosciences, USA), and Novocyte 2060 (ACEA Biosciences, Agilent Technologies, USA) instruments equipped with 488-nm and 640-nm lasers with suitable sets of optical filters. We analyzed data using FlowJo software (BD Biosciences, USA). For each specimen at least 100,000 single CD3+CD45+ events were recorded. The compensation matrix was calculated automatically by the FlowJo software using single-stained CompBeads (BD Biosciences, USA).
IFNγ ELISpot assay
We performed an IFNγ ELISpot assay using the Human IFNγ Single-Color ELISPOT kit (CTL; USA) with a 96-well nitrocellulose plate pre-coated with human IFNγ capture antibody according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 3×105 freshly isolated PBMC in serum-free CTL-test medium (CTL, USA), supplemented with Glutamax (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA) and penicillin/streptomycin (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA), were plated per well and incubated with SARS-CoV-2 PepTivator N or M or a mixture of S, S1, and S+ peptide pools (Miltenyi Biotec, Germany) at a final concentration of 1 μg/mL each at a final volume of 150 µL/well. Additionally, cells were incubated with media only (negative control) or phytohaemagglutinin (Paneco, Russia) at a final concentration of 10 µg/mL (positive control). Plates were incubated for 16–18 h at 37 °C in 5% CO2 atmosphere. The plates were washed twice with PBS, then washed twice with PBS containing 0.05% Tween-20, and incubated with biotinylated anti-human IFNγ detection antibody for 2 h at RT. Plates were washed three times with PBS containing 0.05% Tween-20 followed by incubation with streptavidin-AP for 30 min at RT. Spots were visualized by incubation with the substrate solution for 15 min at RT. The reaction was stopped by a gentle rinse with tap water. We air-dried plates overnight at RT and then counted spots using an automated spot counter CTL ImmunoSpot Analyzer and ImmunoSpot software (CTL; USA). Samples in which the negative control was greater than 10 spots and/or the positive control was less than 20 spots were considered as invalid.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with the Python3 programming language with numpy, scipy, pandas and lifelines packages. The Fisher exact test (two-tailed) was used to compare qualitative parameters between independent groups of individuals; the significance level α for p-values was set to 0.05. The Mann–Whitney U test (two-sided) was used for comparing distributions of quantitative parameters between independent groups of individuals. To control for type I error, we calculated false discovery rate q-values using the Benjamin–Hochberg (BH) procedure and set a threshold of 0.05 to keep the positive false discovery rate below 5%. The Kaplan–Meier estimator technique was used to assess the effects of different types of immunity on the probability of getting ill, with the log-rank test used to compare the survival distributions of different groups (see Supplementary Materials Section 3 for more details). In all figures, for simplicity, p-values are ranked by significance levels using the following labels: 1.00e-02 < p-values ≤ 5.00e-02 are marked with ‘*’; 1.00e-03 < p-value ≤ 1.00e-02 with ‘**’; 1.00e-04 < p-value ≤ 1.00e-03 with ‘***’; and p-value ≤ 1.00e-04 with ‘****’.
Positivity criteria
We set positivity thresholds at 10 AU/mL and 1 Cutoff Index (COI) for IgG and IgM tests, respectively, and performed the tests using a CL-series chemiluminescent immunoassay analyzer (Mindray; China) according to the manufacturer’s standard instructions.
For ELISpot and flow cytometry intracellular immunostaining tests, no pre-defined positivity criteria existed. In order to create positivity criteria which would optimally discriminate between individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who had not (similar to antibody test positivity criteria), we first split the participants into two groups. The first group consisted of individuals with no diagnosed COVID-19 or COVID-19 contacts according to state authorities, with no self-reported COVID-19 or COVID-19 contacts, with no reported ARI symptoms six months prior to the inclusion, and with IgG < 1 AU/mL, IgM < 1 COI. The second group consisted of the individuals with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who recovered before the study, were registered by the state authority, and self-reported COVID-19. We then developed the criteria which would allow us to reach the optimal separation between these groups (see Supplementary Materials for details).
Results
Cohort characteristics
In this non-randomized study, we analyzed the levels of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies and the frequencies of the virus-specific T cells in peripheral blood among 5,340 individuals included in the study. The study design is schematically represented in Figure 1A. All individuals enrolled in the study were Moscow residents over 18 years old, both females (63.8%) and males (36.2%), with the mean age of females 43±14 years and that of males 42±13 years (Figure 1B). The cohort recruitment lasted for 10 weeks (October to December, 2020). The post-inclusion observation continued until the second week of April, 2021. The COVID-19 status of all individuals enrolled in the study by the end of observation is presented in Figure 1C.
Study overview and experimental cohort description.
(A) Schematic study design. Volunteers were tested for SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies and T cell response. T cellular immune response for SARS-CoV-2 proteins was assessed from IFNγ ELISPOT and flow cytometry. COVID-19 status of the participants was evaluated on the basis of questionnaire responses and the Moscow COVID-19 Official registry.
(B) Age and Sex distribution of volunteers included in the study.
(C) COVID status of volunteers included in the study according to the official registry of COVID cases provided by the Moscow Department of Health.
Antibody response
Antibody levels were measured for 5,328 participants. At the time of inclusion, 1,382 (26%) individuals were positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and 2,455 (46%) were positive for the SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG (Figure 2A, B). It is noteworthy that the average proportion of IgG-positive individuals gradually increased from 37% in the first week to 55% in the last week (see Supplementary Figure S3 for more details). Within the cohort we selected a group of 848 participants who had clinically confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) prior to inclusion in the study. We found that IgM titers in the blood serum of these recovered individuals considerably decreased after the 60th day post-disease-onset (Figure 2C). At the same time, IgG titers stayed relatively high and largely unaltered up to 270 days after the disease (Figure 2D) — the longest time between disease confirmation and blood collection in our study. Within a smaller representative group of individuals of the cohort we evaluated virus-neutralizing activity (VNA) of peripheral blood plasma, as well as titers of S- and N-protein–specific IgG antibodies. We detected a strong correlation between IgG titers estimated using the standard technique, on the one hand, and plasma VNA, as well as both S- and N-protein–specific antibodies, on the other (see Supplementary Figure S10 and Supplementary Materials for details).
Evaluation of COVID-19-specific antibody immunity.
(A) Percentages of patients exceeding a positivity threshold for IgM and IgG.
(B) Venn diagram showing relation in positivity between IgG and IgM antibody types.
(C, D) Time dependence of the IgG and IgM levels are shown in (C) and (D), respectively. Each dot represents a single patient. Time is counted from the date of disease onset according to the official registry to the day of inclusion in the study and thus of serology testing. Time interval presented in each boxplot is 30 days. Red line represents a positivity threshold. COI, Cutoff Index.
T cell response
We analyzed the frequencies of the T cells specific to nucleocapsid (N), membrane (M), and spike (S) proteins of SARS-CoV-2 in peripheral blood using ELISpot for 1,785 participants, as well as the frequencies of virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells using flow cytometry for 3,269 participants, with analyses using both methods performed in 1,629 participants (Figure 1A). For this purpose, we used commercial peptide pools (15-mer peptides overlapping by 10 residues and spanning the SARS-CoV-2 M, N, and S proteins) and a stimulation protocol described elsewhere 5,8,9. Both ELISpot and flow cytometry showed that approximately half of analyzed individuals demonstrated the presence of a T cell response against SARS-CoV-2 antigens that was consistent with the level of the antibody response in the cohort (Figure 3A, B). Overall, 1,145 (64.1%) individuals had SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells with response to at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 proteins (N, M, or S) as measured with ELISpot, including 692 (38.8%) with immune responses to all three proteins (Figure 3C). Meanwhile, as analyzed with intracellular immunostaining and flow cytometry, 2,217 (67.8%) participants had SARS-CoV-2–specific CD4+ T cells expressing either interleukin 2 (IL2) only, interferon gamma (IFNγ) only, or both cytokines simultaneously, with 1,095 (33.5%) participants having all three cell populations (Figure 3D). All the metrics of T cell immunity appeared to be relatively stable up to 270 days post COVID-19 (Figure 3E,F; Supplementary Figure S4). Meanwhile, CD8+ T cells activated upon stimulation, as expected, were represented predominantly by the cell population expressing only IFNγ (see Supplementary Materials for details).
Evaluation of COVID-19-specific T cell immunity.
(A) Percentages of patients exceeding a positivity threshold for M, N, S in the ELISpot assay.
(B) Percentages of patients exceeding a positivity threshold for percentage of cells expressing both IL2 and IFNγ, or either of these cytokines in the flow cytometry assay.
(C) Venn diagram showing relation in positivity between different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the ELISpot assay.
(D) Venn diagram showing relation in positivity between expression of different cytokines in response to activation with SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the flow cytometry assay.
(E) Time dependence of the spots numbers for S-protein in the ELISpot assay. Each dot represents a single patient. Time is counted from the date of disease onset according to the official registry to the day of inclusion in the study and thus serology testing. Time interval presented in each boxplot is 30 days. Red line represents a positivity threshold. NoS, number of spots.
(F) Time dependence of the fraction of CD4+ T cells expressing IL2 out of total CD4+ cells in the flow cytometry assay. Each dot represents a single patient. Time is counted from the date of disease onset according to the official registry to the day of inclusion in the study and thus of serology testing. Time interval presented in each boxplot is 30 days. The positivity threshold was variable (see Supplementary Materials for more details) and thus not given here.
Correlation between different metrics of immune response
The frequencies of SARS-CoV-2 –specific T cells obtained with ELISpot were compared with those of corresponding T cell subpopulations ascertained from intracellular immunostaining with flow cytometry. As expected, a strong correlation of the data obtained by different methods was observed (Supplementary Figure S5; see Supplementary Materials for details). Additionally, we found a strong correlation between IgG titers and T cell frequencies as determined from both ELISpot and flow cytometry (Figure 4; see Supplementary Materials for more details). It is worth noting that this correlation was found in the cases of N-, M-, and S-protein–specific T cells, as well as for different populations of CD4+ T cells, but not in the case of CD8+ T cells (Supplementary Figure S5).
Ridgeline plots for T cell immunity metrics as a function of antibody levels. Distribution per decile of IgG of flow cytometry CD4+ cells expressing the IL2 fraction out of the total number of CD4+ cells. For patients from each IgG decile, the plot shows the kernel-density estimate for the T cell fraction, using the Gaussian kerne
Post-inclusion observation
For the cohort of participants, we analyzed the post-inclusion COVID-19 rates. To evaluate the effects of different levels of IgG antibodies or T cell responses on the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants, we employed the Kaplan-Meyer estimator method. Among the 4,027 participants who were eligible for the post-inclusion observation, a total of 259 post-inclusion cases of COVID-19 were registered. For each of the studied parameters of immune response, all participants were divided by the quantiles depending on the levels of their responses, and corresponding Kaplan-Meier curves for each group were generated and analyzed (see Supplementary Materials for more details on Kaplan Meyer curves analysis). It was found that the vast majority of the measured metrics of immune response were characterized by a gradual relationship between the parameter’s value and infection chances, with the infection chances getting lower gradually as the values getting higher. This was the case for all CD4+ T cell populations, as well as for N- and M-specific T cells (representative data for CD4+ T cells expressing IL2 are presented in Figure 5A; for more information see Supplementary Figure S7).
Evaluation of effects of antibody immunity and T cell immunity on COVID-19 infection rates.
(A) Top: Kaplan-Meyer curves for patients with different IgG levels. The patients were split into five nearly equal groups by quantiles of IgG from Q1 to Q5, and a Kaplan-Meyer curve was built for each group (see Supplementary Materials for more details on Kaplan Meyer curves analysis). Bottom: log-rank test p-values for pairwise comparison of all five groups selected by quantiles.
(B) Top: Kaplan-Meyer curves for patients with different CD4+IL2+ cell fractions out of all CD4+ cells. The patients were split into five nearly equal groups by quantiles of cell fraction from Q1 to Q5, and a Kaplan-Meyer curve was built for each group (see Supplementary Materials for more details on Kaplan Meyer curves analysis); ‘c.f.’ stands for ‘cell fraction’. Bottom: log-rank test p-values for pairwise comparison of all five groups selected by quantiles.
(C) Top: Kaplan-Meyer curves for patients with different positivity by IgG levels and CD4+IL2+ cell fractions out of all CD4+ cells. The participants were split into four groups: positive only by antibodies (A+T-), positive only by CD4+IL2+ cell fraction (A-T+), double-positive (A+T+), and double-negative (A-T-), with the positivity criteria discussed above used for the evaluation, and a Kaplan-Meyer curve was built for each group (see Supplementary Materials formore details on Kaplan Meyer curves analysis). Bottom: log-rank test p-values for pairwise comparison of all four groups selected by positivity
For IgG levels a slightly different type of relationship was observed (Figure 5B). Individuals with IgG titers under 0.29 AU/mL, representing the Q1 quantile, were characterized by the highest infection chances. Infection chances for individuals in the Q2 and Q3 quantiles (with IgG titers ranging 0.29–0.97 and 0.97–8.33 AU/mL, respectively) were slightly lower, compared with Q1, and the difference was statistically significant (log-rank p-value < 0.01). Finally, individuals with IgG titers higher than 8.32 AU/mL demonstrated considerably lower infection chances, which were equal for the Q4 (8.33–66.76 AU/mL) and Q5 (>66.76 AU/mL) quantiles. Thus, the 4th and 5th IgG quantiles demonstrated the highest degree of protectivity against COVID-19 (each to the same degree), while the 2nd and 3rd quantiles were much closer to the 1st quantile, albeit slightly more protective. Of note, we found that the data on the protectivity against the infection and plasma virus-neutralizing activity conformed. Individuals with high IgG in the Q4 and Q5 quantiles were characterized by the highest VNA (see Supplementary Figure S10B and Supplementary Materials for details). Particularly, we found a significant virus-neutralizing activity among individuals in the Q3 quantile. However, there was no difference in VNA between the Q1 and Q2 quantiles.
Finally, an almost binary relationship was observed between infection chances and the number of S-protein–specific T cells identified with ELISpot (Supplementary Figure S7). All the individuals with a numbers of spots less than 20 (Q1, Q2, and Q3 quantiles) were similar in regard to absence of protection against the infection. In contrast, the individuals with a number of spots above 20 (Q4 and Q5 quantiles) showed relatively high levels of protection (log-rank p-value < 0.01).
The same method of group comparison, using Kaplan-Meyer curves, was employed to study the combined effects of T cell and antibody immunity on protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this purpose, the participants were split into four groups: positive only by antibody response (A+T-), positive only by some metric of T cell immune response (A-T+), double-positive (A+T+), and double-negative (A-T-), with the previously discussed positivity criteria used for the evaluation. Such analysis was performed for all metrics of T cell immunity used in this study, except for CD8+ T cells since it was impossible to develop a reliable positivity criterion (representative data for IgG titers and CD4+ T cells expressing IL2 are presented in Figure 5C; for more information see Supplementary Figure S8). For all of them, in the A-T-group the infection chances were the highest, while the strongest protective effects were observed in the A+T+ group and in the A+T-group, the latter two groups being statistically indistinguishable (Figure 5C, Supplementary Figure S8). As for the A-T+ group, for all T cell immunity metrics it demonstrated significantly lower protection than both the A+T+ and the A+T-groups (Figure 5C, Supplementary Figure S8). However, the protective effect in the A-T+ group was unlike that in the A-T-group. No statistically significant difference was observed between CD4+ T cells expressing IFNγ only and those expressing both IFNγ and IL2, as well as for the T cells specific to M and S proteins (with a tendency for the presence of protective activity observed for the S-protein–specific T cells, p-value = 0.064) (Supplementary Figure S8). But at the same time the protection was significantly higher than in the A-T-group as measured from the virus-specific CD4+ T cells expressing IL2, as well as from the numbers of N-protein–specific T cells (Figure 5C, Supplementary Figure S8). However, it should be emphasized that individuals single-positive for either N-protein–specific or CD4+IL2+ T cells were characterized by higher IgG levels than individuals of the A-T-group, although the antibody levels were below the positivity cut-off value of 10 AU/mL set by the serology test manufacturer (Supplementary Figure S9).
Discussion
With the progression of the COVID-19 epidemic, a growing number of individuals became infected with and cleared the virus. As a result, most of these individuals developed immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, with the availability of vaccination a considerable number of persons acquired immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens. In principle, acquired immunity should protect these individuals from the infection. However, the strength of the immune response in humans is very diverse. Therefore, it remains to be understood what immune response metrics correlate with the protection. To answer this question, in the present study we investigated the protective potential of the antibody and T cell immune responses against the alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic in Moscow between October 2020 and April 2021. For this purpose, we collected peripheral blood from 5,340 Moscow city residents and evaluated frequencies of the T cells specific to the nucleocapsid (N), membrane (M), and spike (S) proteins of SARS-CoV-2 using IFNγ ELISpot; as well, we analyzed fractions of virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells using intracellular immunostaining followed by flow cytometry. Additionally, the virus-specific IgM and IgG antibody titers were measured in the blood serum. During the study, we observed a constant increase in the average proportion of IgG-positive individuals. It is likely that this increase resulted from the growing number of COVID-19 cases during the second wave in Moscow, which was observed at the time of the cohort recruitment [https://www.who.int/countries/rus/]. Therefore, the constant changes in the fractions of infected/recovered individuals among Moscow residents may have contributed to the observed dynamics of IgG-positive individuals.
For the current study, we enrolled, among others, participants who had PCR-confirmed COVID-19. We showed that IgM titers rapidly decreased in this group after two months post-infection, whereas both IgG and virus-specific T cells could be found in the peripheral blood up to 270 days post-infection. These data are in agreement with the results of studies analyzing the immune response dynamics in patients recovered after COVID-19 10-12.
Here, we found a strong correlation between frequencies of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells evaluated with ELISpot and those evaluated with flow cytometry. These results are not surprising, considering that both methods detect cytokine expression in the activated T cells upon their stimulation with the specific antigens 13. Importantly, IgG titers are highly correlated with the frequencies of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells, indicating that these responses are closely interconnected and, as expected, are induced concurrently in the vast majority of individuals. This correlation was found even at the IgG values below the seropositivity cut-off.
When recruiting to the cohort was completed, and all participants were characterized for their T cell and antibody responses, we analyzed the post-inclusion COVID-19 rates. For this purpose, we employed the Kaplan-Meyer estimator method, which allowed us to take into account the duration of the observation period for different participants and the exclusion of the individuals enlisted to a full-scale civil vaccination campaign in Moscow (see Supplementary Materials for more details). For each of the studied metrics of immune response, the participants were divided into the quantiles, depending on the levels of their response, and corresponding Kaplan-Meier curves for each group were generated and analyzed. It should be noted that the specific shape of the Kaplan-Meier curve mostly reflects the pandemic dynamics in the studied population; however, comparison of curves for different groups allows one to study the protective effects of immunity.
We found that both IgG titer and all parameters of T cell response estimated in the study negatively correlated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection probabilities. The vast majority of the measured metrics of immune response were characterized by a gradual relationship between the parameter’s level and infection probabilities, with the infection chances getting lower gradually as the levels of immune responses getting higher. However, a different type of relationship between protectivity against the infection and parameter level was observed in the case of IgG titers. We identified three groups of individuals characterized by different infection chances. Individuals with IgG titer under 0.29 AU/mL were characterized by the highest infection chances, while the lowest infection chances were associated with values above 8.33 AU/mL, regardless of the exact value. At the same time, infection chances for individuals with IgG titers in the range 0.29–8.33 AU/mL were slightly lower than those for the group with the lowest IgG values, but at the same were considerably higher than in the group with the highest IgG titers. Moreover, we found significant virus-neutralizing activity among individuals with IgG titers in the range 0.97–8.33 AU/mL. This finding may have several possible explanations. This group with intermediate values of IgG may be represented by individuals recovered after asymptomatic or mild COVID-19, who have been shown to develop no antibody response or a rapidly decreasing one 14,15. Alternatively, these individuals may have IgG antibodies that developed as a result of a previous infection with the “common cold” coronaviruses and that are cross-reactive to SARS-CoV-2 5. These features possibly explain why these individuals are characterized by IgG titers in the range 0.29–8.33 AU/mL, which are higher than those in cases of the least protected individuals but are lower than the seropositivity cut-off of 10 AU/mL set by the manufacturer.
As our next step, we analyzed the combined effects of T cell and antibody immunities on protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this purpose, we employed the same method of group comparison using Kaplan-Meyer curves, but the participants were split into four groups: positive by antibodies only, positive by some metric of T cell immune response only, double-positive, and double-negative. We found that individuals positive for both types of immunity demonstrated in general the highest protectivity against the infection indistinguishably from individuals with antibody response only. It is noteworthy that, despite the fact that the COVID-19 rates in these groups were very small—approximately 1%—the rare infection cases still were detected. At the same time, individuals with T cell response only demonstrated slightly higher protectivity than individuals without either type of immunity, as measured from N-protein–specific or CD4+IL2+ peripheral blood T cells. It has been shown that IL2 provides the proliferation and survival signals in T cells and that its autocrine production is associated with the efficient transition of effector CD4+ T cells to the long-living memory cells 16. In this respect, our data indicate that in absence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgGs, N-protein specific memory CD4+ T cells are likely to provide some protection against the infection. Furthermore, it should be noted that individuals who were single-positive for either N-protein–specific or CD4+IL2+ T cells were characterized by higher IgG titers than individuals without either type of immunity, although the titers were below the positivity cut-off value of 10 AU/mL set by the serology test manufacturer. These results are not surprising, considering the strong relationship and proportionality between antibody and T cell immunities found in our study. However, these data, taken together with the high protectivity of the antibody-response-only-positive group, indicate that serum IgG evaluation is a more precise method for the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection chances than the methods based on the detection of virus-specific T cells.
Our study has several limitations: (i) the cohort analyzed is likely to be non-representative and includes only individuals who have visited outpatient clinics to voluntarily undertake tests for COVID-19 antibodies levels and who agreed to participate in the study; (ii) only a limited fraction of cases were reported to the city registry of COVID-19 cases, so some patients who indeed had COVID-19 after inclusion remained unreported; and (iii) we evaluated contributions of systemic antibody and T cell responses to the infectivity probabilities, whereas their local role in lungs, where the critical events of the SARS-CoV-2 infection occur, may be different. However, peripheral blood collection is a much less invasive intervention than bronchoscopy and therefore is more suitable for massive testing of the population in order to predict COVID-19 rates. It should be noted that the results reported are applicable only to infection with alpha SARS-Cov-2, which was dominant in Moscow during the time of study. Further research is needed to understand whether the results obtained hold for the new Delta variant.
Taken together, our data suggest the advantage of serology testing over the analysis of T cell responses for the prediction of SARS-CoV-2 infection rates on a population level. According to our results, the calculated probabilities of infection depending on the specific IgG titers may be instructive for making decisions in personalized healthcare, as well as for the development of public anti-COVID-19 policies.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Leonid Margolis (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) and Prof. Michael M. Lederman (Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) for their valuable comments and suggestions during experimental design, discussion of the results and manuscript preparation, and Dr. Barry Alpher for assistance in editing and improving the English style of the manuscript. The authors also thank the Moscow Department of Healthcare for the help in organization of the study.