Cited by 529SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Researchvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 40 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern partially escape humoral but not T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent donors and vaccine recipients

Open access

Abstract

Infection- or vaccination-induced SARS-CoV-2 S–specific CD4 + T cells are indifferent to the S mutations of variants of concern.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a prospective cohort of 121 BNT162b2-vaccinated health care workers, prior COVID-19 led to rapid recall after one dose, while COVID-19–naive donors required two doses for comparable humoral responses. B.1.351 partially escaped neutralizing and Fc-mediated antibody responses, but CD4+ T cell responses to WT, B.1.1.7, and B.1.351 S proteins were comparable.

Key findings

  • Among 121 HCWs (23 COVID-19–recovered, 98 naive), one vaccine dose boosted binding antibodies in all recovered donors; in naive donors, 92.5% had detectable anti-RBD Ig after one dose but only 53.2% had OD ratio >10, rising after dose two to all detectable and 93.3% with ratio >10. S1 IgG by MIA rose from geometric mean 252.6 ± 49.55 to 2088.5 ± 287.5 BAU/ml in naive donors after the second dose (P < 0.0001).
  • Neutralizing antibodies against WT were detected in all 13 recovered donors before vaccination; one dose boosted PRNT50 to a geometric mean plateau of 1:1874. Naive donors reached a lower peak after two doses (geometric mean titer 1:189, P < 0.0001 vs recovered). Against B.1.351, titers were consistently lower: 2.7-fold and 3.3-fold decreases post-vaccinations 1 and 2 in recovered donors, and a 3.1-fold decrease after dose two in naive donors; B.1.1.7 titers were higher (2.5-fold and 2.2-fold increases in recovered donors).
  • S-specific ADCC-mediating antibodies were induced by infection and vaccination, with comparable activity against WT and B.1.1.7 S, but significantly reduced activity against B.1.351 S at almost all time points in both naive and recovered donors.
  • CD4+ T cell responses did not differ between WT S and B.1.1.7 S or WT S and B.1.351 S. In naive donors, 5 of 7 were CD4+ T cell responders after one or two vaccinations; in recovered donors, 8 of 12 responded before vaccination and 10 of 12 after one or two vaccinations. CD8+ S-specific responses were difficult to detect and were not used to draw conclusions on VOC cross-reactivity.

Methods

  • Prospective cohort of 121 symptomatic HCWs in the Netherlands enrolled from April 2020; 98 classified COVID-19–naive and 23 COVID-19–recovered by RT-PCR and serology. All received two BNT162b2 mRNA doses 21 days apart. Binding antibody assays were performed on all 121; in-depth humoral analyses on 25 (13 recovered, 12 naive); T cell analyses on 20 (13 recovered, 7 naive).
  • Humoral assays included Wantai RBD total Ig ELISA, Luminex S1 IgG MIA, in-house N/S ELISA, and PRNT50 using infectious WT SARS-CoV-2 (D614G), B.1.1.7, and B.1.351. ADCC was measured by NK92.05-CD16 degranulation (CD107a) against WT N, WT S, B.1.1.7 S, and B.1.351 S.
  • T cell responses were measured by AIM flow cytometry (CD69/CD137 in CD4+ and CD8+ subsets) after stimulation with overlapping WT S peptide pools or peptide pools covering mutated regions of B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, with IFN-γ ELISA in a subset. Statistical analyses used GraphPad Prism 9.0.2.

Limitations

  • The paper states the study population was selected HCWs, relatively young, predominantly female, and with mild COVID-19 if previously infected; it was underpowered to compare age groups or comorbidities.
  • The paper states in-depth T cell profiling was limited to 20 donors, focused only on S-specific T cells, and could not further address CD8+ T cell responses to VOCs because of low SARS-CoV-2–specific CD8+ T cell frequency; peptide pools of 15-mers may have limited sensitivity, and some pre-exposure S-specific T cells were probably cross-reactive with seasonal human coronaviruses.
  • The paper states it did not analyze the P.1 VOC, and future studies are needed to assess whether neutralizing antibody differences correlate with breakthrough infection risk and whether ADCC should be measured with infectious virus and primary cells. Evident from the text: the study reports immune responses, not clinical protection or breakthrough infection outcomes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/sciimmunol.abj1750

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 40 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 44 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 30
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
56 of 56
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little is known about T cell cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

    “Although several studies have demonstrated that some VOCs may be capable of evading infection or vaccination-induced neutralizing antibodies, little is known about T cell cross-reactivity with VOCs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants both contain the N501Y mutation.

    “The B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants both contain the signature mutation N501Y”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The N501Y mutation is associated with increased affinity for the ACE2 receptor.

    “associated with increased affinity for the ACE2 (angiotensin converting enzyme 2) receptor.”
3 of 3

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Incorrect percentage in the in-depth vaccination-interval subgroup

    Minor

    Ten of the 13 COVID-19-recovered participants selected for in-depth analysis is 76.9%, not 85.6%.

    Reported 85.6 · recomputed 76.923077

  • Incorrect percentage for naive male participants

    Minor

    Table 1 lists 33 males among 98 COVID-19-naive participants. That is 33.7%, not 35.6%.

    Reported 35.6 · recomputed 33.673469

  • Cohort median age differs between Results and Table 1

    Minor

    The Results state a median age of 41 years, while the "All" column of Table 1 gives 40.

  • Post-vaccination timing variability conflicts with stated collection windows

    Minor

    The stated collection windows are 14-21 and 21-28 days after the first and second doses. Given the reported means, observations confined to those windows cannot have SDs as large as 3.2 and 5.9 days, respectively.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 77 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. N. Zucman, F. Uhel, D. Descamps, D. Roux, J. D. Ricard, Severe reinfection with South African SARS-CoV-2 variant 501Y.V2: A case report. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, ciab014 (2021).
  2. X. Xie, J. Zou, C. R. Fontes-Garfias, H. Xia, K. A. Swanson, M. Cutler, D. Cooper, V. D. Menachery, S. Weaver, P. R. Dormitzer, P. Y. Shi, Neutralization of N501Y mutant SARS-CoV-2 by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera. bioRxiv 10.1101/2021.01.07.425740 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  3. M. McCallum, J. Bassi, A. Marco, A. Chen, A. C. Walls, J. D. Iulio, M. A. Tortorici, M. J. Navarro, C. Silacci-Fregni, C. Saliba, M. Agostini, D. Pinto, K. Culap, S. Bianchi, S. Jaconi, E. Cameroni, J. E. Bowen, S. W. Tilles, M. S. Pizzuto, S. B. Guastalla, G. Bona, A. F. Pellanda, C. Garzoni, W. C. Van Voorhis, L. E. Rosen, G. Snell, A. Telenti, H. W. Virgin, L. Piccoli, D. Corti, D. Veesler, SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by variant B.1.427/B.1.429. bioRxiv 10.1101/2021.03.31.437925 (2021). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 421

Metadata

Authors
Geers, D., Shamier, M. C., Bogers, S., den Hartog, G., Gommers, L., Nieuwkoop, N. N., Schmitz, K. S., Rijsbergen, L. C., van Osch, J. A. T., Dijkhuizen, E., Smits, G., Comvalius, A., van Mourik, D., Caniels, T. G., van Gils, M. J., Sanders, R. W., Oude Munnink, B. B., Molenkamp, R., de Jager, H. J., Haagmans, B. L., de Swart, R. L., Koopmans, M. P. G., van Binnendijk, R. S., de Vries, R. D., & GeurtsvanKessel, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
  • Centre for Immunology of Infectious Diseases and Vaccines, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Corresponding author
  • Geers, Daryl
  • Shamier, Marc C.
  • de Vries, Rory D.
  • GeurtsvanKessel, Corine H.
Venue
Science Immunology
Published
2021-05-28
Volume
6
Issue
59
ISSN
2470-9468 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3165367963
Cited by
529
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 204 · 2021: 101
FWCI
37.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science Immunology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-002022)
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (VICI)
  • ZonMW (10150062010005)
  • Amsterdam UMC (AMC Fellowship)
  • Top Sector Life Sciences Health; Health~Holland (EMCLHS20017)
  • European Union’s Horizon 2020 RECoVER (101003589)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, variants of concern, spike protein mutations, CD4+ T cells, humoral immunity, T cell response, vaccine recipients, immune evasion, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Antibodies, Viral, Cell Line, Cross Reactions, Humans, Immunologic Memory, Vaccination, CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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