Cited by 2,656SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchImmune responses and vaccinationsCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection.

Open access

Abstract

Variable memory: Immune memory against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) helps to determine protection against reinfection, disease risk, and vaccine efficacy. Using 188 human cases across the range of severity of COVID-19, Dan et al. analyzed cross-sectional data describing the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 memory B cells, CD8 + T cells, and CD4 + T cells for more than 6 months after infection. The authors found a high degree of heterogeneity in the magnitude of adaptive immune responses that persisted into the immune memory phase to the virus. However, immune memory in three immunological compartments remained measurable in greater than 90% of subjects for more than 5 months after infection. Despite the heterogeneity of immune responses, these results show that durable immunity against secondary COVID-19 disease is a possibility for most individuals. Science , this issue p. eabf4063

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 · 10.1126/science.abf4063

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Circulating antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 over time. (A) Cross-sectional Spike IgG from COVID-19 subject plasma samples (n=228). Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 140 days, 95% CI: 89-325 days. R = -0.23, p=0.0006. (B) Longitudinal Spike IgG (n=51), average t1/2 = 103 days, 95% CI: 65-235 days (C) Cross-sectional RBD IgG. Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 83 days, 95% CI: 62 to 126 days. R = -0.36, p<0.0001. (D) Longitudinal RBD IgG, average t1/2 = 69 days, 95% CI: 58-87 days (E) Cross-sectional SARS-CoV-2 PSV neutralizing titers. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 27 days, 95% CI 11-157d. R = -0.32. Continuous decay fit line shown as black line. (F) Longitudinal PSV neutralizing titers of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, average t1/2 = 90 days, 95% CI: 70-125 days. (G) Cross-sectional Nucleocapsid IgG. Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 68 days, 95% CI: 50-106 days. R = -0.34, p<0.0001. (H) Longitudinal Nucleocapsid IgG, average t1/2 = 68 days, 95% CI: 55-90 days. (I) Cross-sectional Spike IgA titers. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 11 days, 95% CI 5-25d. R = -0.30. Continuous decay fit shown as black line. (J) Longitudinal Spike IgA, t1/2 = 210 days, 95% CI 126-627 days. (K) Cross-sectional RBD IgA. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 27 days, 95% CI: 15-59 days. R = -0.45. Continuous decay line fit shown in black. (L) Longitudinal RBD IgA, average t1/2 = 74 days, 95% CI: 56-107 days. For cross-sectional analyses, SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects (white circles, n=238) and unexposed subjects (gray circles, n=51). For longitudinal samples, SARS-CoV-2 subjects (n=51). The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS) above uninfected controls. Unexposed = gray, COVID subjects = white. Log data analyzed in all cases. Thick blue line represents best fit curve. When two fit curves are shown, the thin black line represents the alternative fit curve.
Fig. 1 Circulating antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 over time. (A) Cross-sectional Spike IgG from COVID-19 subject plasma samples (n=228). Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 140 days, 95% CI: 89-325 days. R = -0.23, p=0.0006. (B) Longitudinal Spike IgG (n=51), average t1/2 = 103 days, 95% CI: 65-235 days (C) Cross-sectional RBD IgG. Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 83 days, 95% CI: 62 to 126 days. R = -0.36, p<0.0001. (D) Longitudinal RBD IgG, average t1/2 = 69 days, 95% CI: 58-87 days (E) Cross-sectional SARS-CoV-2 PSV neutralizing titers. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 27 days, 95% CI 11-157d. R = -0.32. Continuous decay fit line shown as black line. (F) Longitudinal PSV neutralizing titers of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, average t1/2 = 90 days, 95% CI: 70-125 days. (G) Cross-sectional Nucleocapsid IgG. Continuous decay preferred model for best fit curve, t1/2 = 68 days, 95% CI: 50-106 days. R = -0.34, p<0.0001. (H) Longitudinal Nucleocapsid IgG, average t1/2 = 68 days, 95% CI: 55-90 days. (I) Cross-sectional Spike IgA titers. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 11 days, 95% CI 5-25d. R = -0.30. Continuous decay fit shown as black line. (J) Longitudinal Spike IgA, t1/2 = 210 days, 95% CI 126-627 days. (K) Cross-sectional RBD IgA. One-phase decay (blue line) preferred model for best fit curve, initial t1/2 = 27 days, 95% CI: 15-59 days. R = -0.45. Continuous decay line fit shown in black. (L) Longitudinal RBD IgA, average t1/2 = 74 days, 95% CI: 56-107 days. For cross-sectional analyses, SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects (white circles, n=238) and unexposed subjects (gray circles, n=51). For longitudinal samples, SARS-CoV-2 subjects (n=51). The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS) above uninfected controls. Unexposed = gray, COVID subjects = white. Log data analyzed in all cases. Thick blue line represents best fit curve. When two fit curves are shown, the thin black line represents the alternative fit curve.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 memory B cell responses. (A) Example flow cytometry plots showing staining patterns of SARS-CoV-2 antigen probes on memory B cells (See fig. S1 for gating). One unexposed donor and three convalescent COVID-19 subjects are shown. Numbers indicate percentages. (B) Gating strategies to define IgM+, IgG+, or IgA+ SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific memory B cells. The same gating strategies were used for RBD- or Nucleocapsid-specific B cells. (C) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD19+ CD20+ B cells) of SARS-CoV-2 S-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.38). (D) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific memory B cells. (E) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (R = 0.46). (F) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific memory B cells. (G) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.44). (H) Longitudinal analysis of IgG+ SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific memory B cells. (I) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.49). (J) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells. (K) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgA+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.32). (L) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgA+ memory B cells. (M) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgM+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.41). (N) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgM+ memory B cells. (O) Fraction of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific memory B cells that belong to indicated Ig isotypes at 1-8 months PSO. Mean ± SEM. (P) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.51). (Q) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.51). n = 20 unexposed subjects (gray circles) and n = 160 COVID-19 subjects (n = 197 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis. n = 36 COVID-19 subjects (n = 73 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS).
Fig. 2 Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 memory B cell responses. (A) Example flow cytometry plots showing staining patterns of SARS-CoV-2 antigen probes on memory B cells (See fig. S1 for gating). One unexposed donor and three convalescent COVID-19 subjects are shown. Numbers indicate percentages. (B) Gating strategies to define IgM+, IgG+, or IgA+ SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific memory B cells. The same gating strategies were used for RBD- or Nucleocapsid-specific B cells. (C) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD19+ CD20+ B cells) of SARS-CoV-2 S-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.38). (D) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific memory B cells. (E) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (R = 0.46). (F) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific memory B cells. (G) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific total (IgG+, IgM+, or IgA+) memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.44). (H) Longitudinal analysis of IgG+ SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific memory B cells. (I) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Pseudo-first order kinetic model for best fit curve (R = 0.49). (J) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells. (K) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgA+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.32). (L) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgA+ memory B cells. (M) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgM+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.41). (N) Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgM+ memory B cells. (O) Fraction of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific memory B cells that belong to indicated Ig isotypes at 1-8 months PSO. Mean ± SEM. (P) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.51). (Q) Cross-sectional analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid-specific IgG+ memory B cells. Second order polynomial model for best fit curve (|R| = 0.51). n = 20 unexposed subjects (gray circles) and n = 160 COVID-19 subjects (n = 197 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis. n = 36 COVID-19 subjects (n = 73 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 SARS-CoV-2 circulating memory CD8+ T cells. (A) Representative flow cytometry plots of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells (CD69+ CD137+, See fig. S3 for gating) after overnight stimulation with S, N, M, ORF3a, or nsp3 peptide pools, compared to negative control (DMSO). (B) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD8+ T cells) of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. Continuous decay preferred fit model, t1/2 = 125 days. R = -0.24, p = 0.0003. (C) Longitudinal analysis of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells in paired samples. (D) Cross-sectional analysis of Spike-specific CD8+ T cells. Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 225 days. R = -0.18, p = 0.007. (E) Longitudinal analysis of Spike-specific CD8+ T cells in paired samples. (F, G) Distribution of central memory (TCM), effector memory (TEM), and terminally differentiated effector memory cells (TEMRA) among total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. n = 169 COVID-19 subjects (n = 215 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis. n = 37 COVID-19 subjects (n = 83 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS).
Fig. 3 SARS-CoV-2 circulating memory CD8+ T cells. (A) Representative flow cytometry plots of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells (CD69+ CD137+, See fig. S3 for gating) after overnight stimulation with S, N, M, ORF3a, or nsp3 peptide pools, compared to negative control (DMSO). (B) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD8+ T cells) of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. Continuous decay preferred fit model, t1/2 = 125 days. R = -0.24, p = 0.0003. (C) Longitudinal analysis of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells in paired samples. (D) Cross-sectional analysis of Spike-specific CD8+ T cells. Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 225 days. R = -0.18, p = 0.007. (E) Longitudinal analysis of Spike-specific CD8+ T cells in paired samples. (F, G) Distribution of central memory (TCM), effector memory (TEM), and terminally differentiated effector memory cells (TEMRA) among total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. n = 169 COVID-19 subjects (n = 215 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis. n = 37 COVID-19 subjects (n = 83 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 SARS-CoV-2 circulating memory CD4+ T cells. (A) Representative flow cytometry plots of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells (CD137+ OX40+, See fig. S4 for gating) after overnight stimulation with S, N, M, ORF3a, or nsp3 peptide pools, compared to negative control (DMSO). (B) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD4+ T cells) of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. Continuous decay preferred fit model, t1/2 = 94 days. R = -0.29, p<0.0001. (C) Longitudinal analysis of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells in paired samples from the same subjects. (D) Cross-sectional analysis of Spike-specific CD4+ T cells. Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 139 days. R = -0.26, p<0.0001. (E) Longitudinal analysis of Spike-specific CD4+ T cells in paired samples from the same subjects. (F, G) Distribution of central memory (TCM), effector memory (TEM), and terminally differentiated effector memory cells (TEMRA) among total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. (H, I) Quantitation of SARS-CoV-2-specific circulating T follicular helper (cTFH) cells (surface CD40L+ OX40+, as % of CD4+ T cells. See fig. S5 for gating) after overnight stimulation with (H) Spike (S) or (I) MP_R peptide pools. (J) PD-1hi SARS-CoV-2-specific TFH at 1-2 months (mo) and 6 mo PSO. (K) CCR6+ SARS-CoV-2-specific cTFH in comparison to bulk cTFH cells in blood. For (A-E), n = 169 COVID-19 subjects (n = 215 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis, n = 37 COVID-19 subjects (n = 83 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS). For (H-J), n = 29 COVID-19 subject samples (white circles), n = 17 COVID-19 subjects at 1-2 mo, n = 12 COVID-19 subjects at 6 mo. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). Statistics by (J) Mann-Whitney U test and (K) Wilcoxon signed-rank test. * p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Fig. 4 SARS-CoV-2 circulating memory CD4+ T cells. (A) Representative flow cytometry plots of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells (CD137+ OX40+, See fig. S4 for gating) after overnight stimulation with S, N, M, ORF3a, or nsp3 peptide pools, compared to negative control (DMSO). (B) Cross-sectional analysis of frequency (% of CD4+ T cells) of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. Continuous decay preferred fit model, t1/2 = 94 days. R = -0.29, p<0.0001. (C) Longitudinal analysis of total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells in paired samples from the same subjects. (D) Cross-sectional analysis of Spike-specific CD4+ T cells. Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 139 days. R = -0.26, p<0.0001. (E) Longitudinal analysis of Spike-specific CD4+ T cells in paired samples from the same subjects. (F, G) Distribution of central memory (TCM), effector memory (TEM), and terminally differentiated effector memory cells (TEMRA) among total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. (H, I) Quantitation of SARS-CoV-2-specific circulating T follicular helper (cTFH) cells (surface CD40L+ OX40+, as % of CD4+ T cells. See fig. S5 for gating) after overnight stimulation with (H) Spike (S) or (I) MP_R peptide pools. (J) PD-1hi SARS-CoV-2-specific TFH at 1-2 months (mo) and 6 mo PSO. (K) CCR6+ SARS-CoV-2-specific cTFH in comparison to bulk cTFH cells in blood. For (A-E), n = 169 COVID-19 subjects (n = 215 data points, white circles) for cross-sectional analysis, n = 37 COVID-19 subjects (n = 83 data points, white circles) for longitudinal analysis. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). The dotted green line indicates limit of sensitivity (LOS). For (H-J), n = 29 COVID-19 subject samples (white circles), n = 17 COVID-19 subjects at 1-2 mo, n = 12 COVID-19 subjects at 6 mo. The dotted black line indicates limit of detection (LOD). Statistics by (J) Mann-Whitney U test and (K) Wilcoxon signed-rank test. * p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Immune memory relationships. (A) Relationship between gender and Spike IgG titers over time. Males: Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 110 days, 95% CI: 65-349 days, R = -0.27, p = 0.0046. Females: linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 159 days, 95% CI 88-846 days, R = -0.22, p = 0.016. ANCOVA p = 0.00018. Test for homogeneity of regressions F = 1.51, p = 0.22. (B-E) Immune memory at 120+ days PSO in COVID-19 non-hospitalized and hospitalized subjects. Symbol colors represent peak disease severity (white: asymptomatic, gray: mild, blue: moderate, red: severe.) For subjects with multiple sample timepoints, only the final timepoint was used for these analyses. (B) Spike-specific IgG (left) and RBD-specific IgG (right) binding titers. n = 64 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). Mann-Whitney U tests. (C) Frequency memory B cells specific to Spike (left) and RBD (right) at 120+ days PSO. n = 66 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). Mann-Whitney U tests. (D) Frequency total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells (left) and Spike-specific CD8+ T cells (right). p = 0.72 for total SARS-2-CoV-specific, p = 0.60 for Spike-specific by Mann-Whitney U tests. n = 72 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). (E) Frequency total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells (left) and Spike-specific CD4+ T cells (right). p = 0.23 for total SARS-CoV-2-specific, p = 0.24 for Spike-specific by Mann-Whitney U tests (F) Immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 during the early phase (1-2 mo, black line), medium phase (3-4 mo, red line), or late phase (5-8 mo, blue line). For each individual, a score of 1 was assigned for each response above LOS for RBD IgG, Spike IgA, RBD-specific memory B cells, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T cells, and SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells, giving a maximum total of 5 components of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory. Only COVID-19 convalescent subjects with all five immunological parameters tested were included in the analysis. n = 78 (1-2 mo), n = 52 (3-4 mo), n = 44 (5-8 mo). (G) Percentage dot plots showing frequencies (normalized to 100%) of subjects with indicated immune memory components as described in (B) during the early (1-2 mo) or late (5-8 mo) phase. “G”, RBD-specific IgG. “B”, RBD-specific memory B cells. “4”, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T cells. “8”, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8+ T cells. “A”, Spike-specific IgA. n = 78 (1-2 mo), n = 44 (5-8 mo). (H) Relationships between immune memory compartments in COVID-19 subjects over time, as ratios (full curves and data shown in fig. S10, B to F). AU = arbitrary units, scaled from fig. S10, B to F. “B/IgA”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to Spike IgA antibodies. “B/IgG”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to RBD IgG antibodies. “B/CD4”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. “CD4/CD8”, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells ratio to SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. “CD4/IgG”, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells ratio to RBD IgG antibodies.
Fig. 5 Immune memory relationships. (A) Relationship between gender and Spike IgG titers over time. Males: Linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 110 days, 95% CI: 65-349 days, R = -0.27, p = 0.0046. Females: linear decay preferred model, t1/2 = 159 days, 95% CI 88-846 days, R = -0.22, p = 0.016. ANCOVA p = 0.00018. Test for homogeneity of regressions F = 1.51, p = 0.22. (B-E) Immune memory at 120+ days PSO in COVID-19 non-hospitalized and hospitalized subjects. Symbol colors represent peak disease severity (white: asymptomatic, gray: mild, blue: moderate, red: severe.) For subjects with multiple sample timepoints, only the final timepoint was used for these analyses. (B) Spike-specific IgG (left) and RBD-specific IgG (right) binding titers. n = 64 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). Mann-Whitney U tests. (C) Frequency memory B cells specific to Spike (left) and RBD (right) at 120+ days PSO. n = 66 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). Mann-Whitney U tests. (D) Frequency total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells (left) and Spike-specific CD8+ T cells (right). p = 0.72 for total SARS-2-CoV-specific, p = 0.60 for Spike-specific by Mann-Whitney U tests. n = 72 (non-hospitalized), n = 10 (hospitalized). (E) Frequency total SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells (left) and Spike-specific CD4+ T cells (right). p = 0.23 for total SARS-CoV-2-specific, p = 0.24 for Spike-specific by Mann-Whitney U tests (F) Immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 during the early phase (1-2 mo, black line), medium phase (3-4 mo, red line), or late phase (5-8 mo, blue line). For each individual, a score of 1 was assigned for each response above LOS for RBD IgG, Spike IgA, RBD-specific memory B cells, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T cells, and SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells, giving a maximum total of 5 components of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory. Only COVID-19 convalescent subjects with all five immunological parameters tested were included in the analysis. n = 78 (1-2 mo), n = 52 (3-4 mo), n = 44 (5-8 mo). (G) Percentage dot plots showing frequencies (normalized to 100%) of subjects with indicated immune memory components as described in (B) during the early (1-2 mo) or late (5-8 mo) phase. “G”, RBD-specific IgG. “B”, RBD-specific memory B cells. “4”, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T cells. “8”, SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8+ T cells. “A”, Spike-specific IgA. n = 78 (1-2 mo), n = 44 (5-8 mo). (H) Relationships between immune memory compartments in COVID-19 subjects over time, as ratios (full curves and data shown in fig. S10, B to F). AU = arbitrary units, scaled from fig. S10, B to F. “B/IgA”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to Spike IgA antibodies. “B/IgG”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to RBD IgG antibodies. “B/CD4”, RBD-specific memory B cell ratio to SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells. “CD4/CD8”, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells ratio to SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. “CD4/IgG”, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells ratio to RBD IgG antibodies.CC BY · 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 80 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. S. Plotkin W. Orenstein P. Offit Plotkin’s Vaccines (Elsevier ed. 7 2018).
  2. 10.1126/science.abd7728 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dan, J. M., Mateus, J., Kato, Y., Hastie, K. M., Yu, E. D., Faliti, C. E., Grifoni, A., Ramirez, S. I., Haupt, S., Frazier, A., Nakao, C., Rayaprolu, V., Rawlings, S. A., Peters, B., Krammer, F., Simon, V., Saphire, E. O., Smith, D. M., Weiskopf, D., Sette, A., & Crotty, S.
Affiliations
  • La Jolla Institute for Immunology (US)
  • Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research, La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI), La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dan, Jennifer M.
  • Kato, Yu
  • Weiskopf, Daniela
  • Sette, Alessandro
  • Crotty, Shane
Venue
Science
Published
2021-02-05
Volume
371
Issue
6529
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W3121008609
Cited by
2,656
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 152 · 2024: 218 · 2023: 384 · 2022: 839 · 2021: 972
FWCI
191.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • ImmPort
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Nr. 75N9301900065)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI142742, AI135078, HHSN272201400008C, 75N93019C00051, AI007036, U01 AI141995, AI141995-03, U01 CA260541-01, AI007384)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-006133)
  • Wellcome (INV-006133)
  • Mastercard Incorporated (INV-006133)
  • JPB Foundation
  • Open Philanthropy Project (2020-215611)
  • Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation
  • John and Mary Tu Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, immunological memory, memory B cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, adaptive immune response, long-term immunity, reinfection, vaccine efficacy, immune response heterogeneity
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Viral, B-Lymphocytes, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Immunologic Memory, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, United States, CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Young Adult, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

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