CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 540vaccines and immunoinformatics approachesSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases

Open access
Tarke, Alison, Sidney, John, Kidd, Conner K., Dan, Jennifer M., Ramirez, Sydney I., Yu, Esther Dawen, Mateus, Jose, da Silva Antunes, Ricardo, Moore, Erin, Rubiro, Paul, Methot, Nils, Phillips, Elizabeth, Mallal, Simon, Frazier, April, Rawlings, Stephen A., Greenbaum, Jason A., Peters, Bjoern, Smith, Davey M., Crotty, Shane, Weiskopf, Daniela, Grifoni, Alba, Sette, Alessandro·2021·Cell Reports Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100204PMC PMC7837622

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

T cells are involved in control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To establish the patterns of immunodominance of different SARS-CoV-2 antigens and precisely measure virus-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cells, we study epitope-specific T cell responses of 99 convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The SARS-CoV-2 proteome is probed using 1,925 peptides spanning the entire genome, ensuring an unbiased coverage of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles for class II responses. For HLA class I, we study an additional 5,600 predicted binding epitopes for 28 prominent HLA class I alleles, accounting for wide global coverage. We identify several hundred HLA-restricted SARS-CoV-2-derived epitopes. Distinct patterns of immunodominance are observed, which differ for CD4 + T cells, CD8 + T cells, and antibodies. The class I and class II epitopes are combined into epitope megapools to facilitate identification and quantification of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100204

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 1 SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell reactivity per protein PBMCs from convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 99) were analyzed for reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 (A–F). Heatmaps of T cell reactivity across the entire SARS-CoV-2 proteome and as a function of the donor tested are shown for CD4+ (A) and CD8+ (B) T cells. The x axis shows individual donors’ responses to the indicated SARS-CoV-2 protein. Immunodominance at the ORF/antigen level and breath of T cell responses are shown for CD4+ (C) and CD8+ (E) T cells. Data are shown as geometric mean ± geometric SD. The numbers of donors recognizing one or more antigens with a response >10%, normalized per donor to account for the differences in magnitude based on days PSO, are shown for CD4+ (D) and CD8+ (F) T cells. Empty blue and red circles represent CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity per protein, respectively. Filled blue and red circles highlight the immunodominant antigens recognized by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, respectively.
Figure 1 SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell reactivity per protein PBMCs from convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 99) were analyzed for reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 (A–F). Heatmaps of T cell reactivity across the entire SARS-CoV-2 proteome and as a function of the donor tested are shown for CD4+ (A) and CD8+ (B) T cells. The x axis shows individual donors’ responses to the indicated SARS-CoV-2 protein. Immunodominance at the ORF/antigen level and breath of T cell responses are shown for CD4+ (C) and CD8+ (E) T cells. Data are shown as geometric mean ± geometric SD. The numbers of donors recognizing one or more antigens with a response >10%, normalized per donor to account for the differences in magnitude based on days PSO, are shown for CD4+ (D) and CD8+ (F) T cells. Empty blue and red circles represent CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity per protein, respectively. Filled blue and red circles highlight the immunodominant antigens recognized by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, respectively.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell reactivities and their correlations with antibody production and CD8+ T cell reactivity (A) RBD IgG serology is shown for all the convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 99) of this cohort. (B–E) Serology data of (A) are correlated with CD4+ T cell reactivities specific against all combined proteins (B), structural proteins S, M, and N (C), non-structural proteins nsp3, nsp4, nsp12, and nsp13 (D), and ORF8 and ORF3a (E). (F–I) The total CD8+ T cell reactivity is correlated with the total CD4+ T cell reactivity (F) and the CD4+ T cell reactivity against structural proteins S, M, and N (G), non-structural proteins nsp3, nsp4, nsp12, and nsp13 (H), and ORF8 and ORF3a (I). Empty and filled circles represent correlation between CD4+ T cell reactivity and serology or CD8+ T cell reactivity, respectively. All analyses were performed using Spearman correlation, and the p values shown were not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing.
Figure 2 SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell reactivities and their correlations with antibody production and CD8+ T cell reactivity (A) RBD IgG serology is shown for all the convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 99) of this cohort. (B–E) Serology data of (A) are correlated with CD4+ T cell reactivities specific against all combined proteins (B), structural proteins S, M, and N (C), non-structural proteins nsp3, nsp4, nsp12, and nsp13 (D), and ORF8 and ORF3a (E). (F–I) The total CD8+ T cell reactivity is correlated with the total CD4+ T cell reactivity (F) and the CD4+ T cell reactivity against structural proteins S, M, and N (G), non-structural proteins nsp3, nsp4, nsp12, and nsp13 (H), and ORF8 and ORF3a (I). Empty and filled circles represent correlation between CD4+ T cell reactivity and serology or CD8+ T cell reactivity, respectively. All analyses were performed using Spearman correlation, and the p values shown were not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Heat maps of HLA predicted binding patterns in the 27 most frequent HLA class II alleles (A) SARS-CoV-2 CD4+ T cell epitopes as a function of the number of responding donors (n = 44 convalescent COVID-19 donors) recognized and strength of responses. (B and C) Predicted binding patterns for the top 49 most immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 CD4+ T cell epitopes (B) are compared with a set of matched non-epitopes (C). Predicted half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) was calculated using NetMHCIIpan and converted to log10 scale. Lower values indicate stronger predicted binding affinity and are highlighted at the red end of the spectrum. Predicted values with an IC50 < 1 000 nM (log10 scale < 3) are considered positive binders.
Figure 3 Heat maps of HLA predicted binding patterns in the 27 most frequent HLA class II alleles (A) SARS-CoV-2 CD4+ T cell epitopes as a function of the number of responding donors (n = 44 convalescent COVID-19 donors) recognized and strength of responses. (B and C) Predicted binding patterns for the top 49 most immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 CD4+ T cell epitopes (B) are compared with a set of matched non-epitopes (C). Predicted half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) was calculated using NetMHCIIpan and converted to log10 scale. Lower values indicate stronger predicted binding affinity and are highlighted at the red end of the spectrum. Predicted values with an IC50 < 1 000 nM (log10 scale < 3) are considered positive binders.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T cell responses by antigen and class I allele (A) The number of donors tested with their HLA-matched class I peptides for each of the 8 dominant proteins for CD8+ (n = 40 convalescent COVID-19 donors with a range of 4 to 35 donors tested per protein). (B and C) The distribution of allele-specific CD8+ responses for the 18 class I alleles that were tested in 3 or more donors is shown as function of protein composition (B) or the HLA class I alleles tested (C). Blue bars represent the total magnitude of AIM+ CD8+ T cells divided by the number of positive donors. Gray bars represent the frequency of positive tests. (D) The total number of epitopes identified for each class I allele is shown in panel.
Figure 4 Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T cell responses by antigen and class I allele (A) The number of donors tested with their HLA-matched class I peptides for each of the 8 dominant proteins for CD8+ (n = 40 convalescent COVID-19 donors with a range of 4 to 35 donors tested per protein). (B and C) The distribution of allele-specific CD8+ responses for the 18 class I alleles that were tested in 3 or more donors is shown as function of protein composition (B) or the HLA class I alleles tested (C). Blue bars represent the total magnitude of AIM+ CD8+ T cells divided by the number of positive donors. Gray bars represent the frequency of positive tests. (D) The total number of epitopes identified for each class I allele is shown in panel.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Immunodominant regions for CD4+ T cells S, N, and M proteins. (A) S, (B) N, and (C) M proteins as a function of the frequency of positive response (red) and total magnitude (black) in the topmost panel. The dotted red line indicates the cutoff of 20% frequency of positivity used to define the immunodominant regions boxed in red and also shown in red in Figure 6. The x axis labels in this topmost panel indicate the middle position of the peptide. Binding promiscuity was calculated based on NetMHCIIpan predicted IC50 for the alleles present in the cohort of donors tested and is shown in gray on the upper middle panel. The lower middle panel shows the % homology of SARS-CoV-2 to the four most frequent CCC (229E in pink, NL63 in green, HKU1 in orange, and OC43 in black) and the max value (blue). The linear structure of each protein is drawn below the graph of homology. The magnitude of CD8+ responses to class I predicted epitopes is shown in the bottom panel, where black dots represent epitopes and red dots represent non-epitopes, each centered on the middle position of the peptide. PBMCs from convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 44) were tested for reactivity to the peptides indicated in the topmost and bottommost panels (A)–(C).
Figure 5 Immunodominant regions for CD4+ T cells S, N, and M proteins. (A) S, (B) N, and (C) M proteins as a function of the frequency of positive response (red) and total magnitude (black) in the topmost panel. The dotted red line indicates the cutoff of 20% frequency of positivity used to define the immunodominant regions boxed in red and also shown in red in Figure 6. The x axis labels in this topmost panel indicate the middle position of the peptide. Binding promiscuity was calculated based on NetMHCIIpan predicted IC50 for the alleles present in the cohort of donors tested and is shown in gray on the upper middle panel. The lower middle panel shows the % homology of SARS-CoV-2 to the four most frequent CCC (229E in pink, NL63 in green, HKU1 in orange, and OC43 in black) and the max value (blue). The linear structure of each protein is drawn below the graph of homology. The magnitude of CD8+ responses to class I predicted epitopes is shown in the bottom panel, where black dots represent epitopes and red dots represent non-epitopes, each centered on the middle position of the peptide. PBMCs from convalescent COVID-19 donors (n = 44) were tested for reactivity to the peptides indicated in the topmost and bottommost panels (A)–(C).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Immunodominant regions for CD4+ T cells and B cells in relation to the 3D rendering of S, N, and M proteins 3D rendering of S (A), N (B), and M (C) proteins. The drawings show in gray the 3D structures, in red the CD4+ T cell immunodominant regions for each protein with frequency of positive responses >20% (also shown in red in Figure 5), and in yellow the B cell immunodominant regions for each protein based on the work of Shrock et al.36 Glycosylation sites for S are shown as gray dots and are based on information embedded in the original crystal structure shown to map the immunodominant regions (PDB: 6XR8). (A) The S protein is shown as monomer on the left and trimer in the middle and on the right (side and top views). (B) N protein 3D rendering was based on a model generated using Phyre2. Additional details about the N model are available in the STAR methods section. (C) The M protein is shown as a monomer according to a model previously described by Heo et al.37 All the 3D renderings have been performed using the free version of YASARA.
Figure 6 Immunodominant regions for CD4+ T cells and B cells in relation to the 3D rendering of S, N, and M proteins 3D rendering of S (A), N (B), and M (C) proteins. The drawings show in gray the 3D structures, in red the CD4+ T cell immunodominant regions for each protein with frequency of positive responses >20% (also shown in red in Figure 5), and in yellow the B cell immunodominant regions for each protein based on the work of Shrock et al.36 Glycosylation sites for S are shown as gray dots and are based on information embedded in the original crystal structure shown to map the immunodominant regions (PDB: 6XR8). (A) The S protein is shown as monomer on the left and trimer in the middle and on the right (side and top views). (B) N protein 3D rendering was based on a model generated using Phyre2. Additional details about the N model are available in the STAR methods section. (C) The M protein is shown as a monomer according to a model previously described by Heo et al.37 All the 3D renderings have been performed using the free version of YASARA.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 7 T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 megapools as measured in AIM (empty circles) and FluoroSpot (filled in circles) assays (A–D) Twenty-five unexposed and 31 convalescent COVID-19 donors were tested in the AIM assays (A and C), and all donors were also tested in the FluoroSpot assays (B and D). (A and B) CD4+ T cell responses to CD4-R+S (previously described), CD4-E (280 class II epitopes identified in this study), and EC class II14 megapools were measured via AIM (A) and FluoroSpot (B). Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney. (C and D) CD8+ T cell responses to CD8-A+B (previously described), CD8-E (454 class I epitopes identified in this study), and EC class I14 megapools were measured via AIM (C) and FluoroSpot (D). Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney. (E–H) ROC analysis for CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response data in FluoroSpot (F–H) and AIM (E–G) assays. (I–L) Additionally, we further tested 17 of these COVID-19 convalescent donors in FluoroSpot with a titration of 200, 50, 25, and 12.5 × 103 cells per well with the indicated CD4-MPs (I and J) and CD8-MPs (K and L). (I and K) Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney.
Figure 7 T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 megapools as measured in AIM (empty circles) and FluoroSpot (filled in circles) assays (A–D) Twenty-five unexposed and 31 convalescent COVID-19 donors were tested in the AIM assays (A and C), and all donors were also tested in the FluoroSpot assays (B and D). (A and B) CD4+ T cell responses to CD4-R+S (previously described), CD4-E (280 class II epitopes identified in this study), and EC class II14 megapools were measured via AIM (A) and FluoroSpot (B). Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney. (C and D) CD8+ T cell responses to CD8-A+B (previously described), CD8-E (454 class I epitopes identified in this study), and EC class I14 megapools were measured via AIM (C) and FluoroSpot (D). Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney. (E–H) ROC analysis for CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response data in FluoroSpot (F–H) and AIM (E–G) assays. (I–L) Additionally, we further tested 17 of these COVID-19 convalescent donors in FluoroSpot with a titration of 200, 50, 25, and 12.5 × 103 cells per well with the indicated CD4-MPs (I and J) and CD8-MPs (K and L). (I and K) Bars represent geometric mean ± geometric SD, and p values were calculated by Mann-Whitney.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 540

Related

Metadata

Authors
Tarke, A., Sidney, J., Kidd, C. K., Dan, J. M., Ramirez, S. I., Yu, E. D., Mateus, J., da Silva Antunes, R., Moore, E., Rubiro, P., Methot, N., Phillips, E., Mallal, S., Frazier, A., Rawlings, S. A., Greenbaum, J. A., Peters, B., Smith, D. M., Crotty, S., Weiskopf, D., Grifoni, A., & Sette, A.
Affiliations
  • La Jolla Institute for Immunology (US)
  • Murdoch University (AU)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
  • Grifoni, Alba
  • Sette, Alessandro
ORCID
Venue
Cell Reports Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
100204
ISSN
2666-3791 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100204
PMC
PMC7837622
OpenAlex
W3122458452
Cited by
540
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 118 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 131
FWCI
37.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cell Reports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • ImmPort
Funders
  • University of California, San Diego (AI007036and AI007384)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (75N93019C00001, AI42742, 75N9301900065)
  • National Institutes of Health (AI036214, U01 CA260541-01, AI135078)
  • John and Mary Tu Foundation
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Università degli Studi di Genova
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, epitope-specific T cell responses, HLA-restricted epitopes, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, HLA class II, convalescent patients, virus-specific T cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review