Ling Ni1, Fang Ye2, Meng-Li Cheng3, Yu Feng4, Yong-Qiang Deng3, Hui Zhao3, Peng Wei4, Jiwan Ge5, Mengting Gou4, Xiaoli Li4, Lin Sun4, Tianshu Cao3, Pengzhi Wang4, Chao Zhou3, Rongrong Zhang3, Peng Liang6, Han Guo7, Xinquan Wang5, Cheng-Feng Qin8, Fang Chen9, Chen Dong10. 1. Institute for Immunology and School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China; Center for Human Disease Immuno-monitoring, Beijing Friendship Hospital, 100050 Beijing, China. 2. Department of Hematology, Chui Yang Liu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University, 100022 Beijing, China. 3. Department of Virology, State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 100071 Beijing, China. 4. Institute for Immunology and School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China. 5. School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, 100022 Beijing, China. 6. Department of Cardiology, Chui Yang Liu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University, 100022 Beijing, China. 7. Department of Orthopedics, Chui Yang Liu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University, 100022 Beijing, China. 8. Department of Virology, State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 100071 Beijing, China. Electronic address: qincf@bmi.ac.cn. 9. Department of Cardiology, Chui Yang Liu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University, 100022 Beijing, China. Electronic address: anzhenchenfang@163.com. 10. Institute for Immunology and School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China; Center for Human Disease Immuno-monitoring, Beijing Friendship Hospital, 100050 Beijing, China; Beijing Key Lab for Immunological Research on Chronic Diseases, 100084 Beijing, China. Electronic address: chendong@tsinghua.edu.cn.
Abstract
The World Health Organization has declared SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak a worldwide pandemic. However, there is very limited understanding on the immune responses, especially adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we collected blood from COVID-19 patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells. Our work provides a basis for further analysis of protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and understanding the pathogenesis of COVID-19, especially in the severe cases. It also has implications in developing an effective vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The World Health Organization has declared SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak a worldwide pandemic. However, there is very limited understanding on the immune responses, especially adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we collected blood from COVID-19patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells. Our work provides a basis for further analysis of protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and understanding the pathogenesis of COVID-19, especially in the severe cases. It also has implications in developing an effective vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
At the end of 2019, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were identified in Wuhan, China (Wang et al., 2020), infected by a novel coronavirus, now named as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The World Health Organization (WHO) first declared this outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (Phelan et al., 2020) and subsequently a worldwide pandemic (Di Pierro et al., 2020) .The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 bears 96% (Zhou et al., 2020) and 79.5% identity to that of a bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV, respectively (Zhu et al., 2020). Like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the beta genus Coronavirus in the Corornaviridae family (Lu et al., 2020). Clinically, several papers showed that most COVID-19patients developed lymphopenia as well as pneumonia with higher plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in severe cases (Chan et al., 2020, Huang et al., 2020, Wu et al., 2020), suggesting that the host immune system is involved in the pathogenesis (Mahallawi et al., 2018, Nicholls et al., 2003). Patientsinfected by SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV were previously reported to have antibody responses (Ko et al., 2017, Shi et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2016, Woo et al., 2004) but exhibited defective expression of types I and II interferons (IFNs), indicative of poor protective immune responses (Cameron et al., 2008, Thiel and Weber, 2008, Vijay and Perlman, 2016). However, to date, there were few studies in characterizing the immune responses (Wolfel et al., 2020, Zhou et al., 2020), especially adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Zhou et al. showed that COVID-19patients exhibited nucleocapsid protein (NP)-specific antibody response, and in one patient, immunoglobulin M (IgM) peaked at day 9 after disease onset and then switched to IgG by week 2 (Zhou et al., 2020). They also reported that sera from several patients could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry in target cells, indicating involvement of humoral immunity. Krammer and colleagues detected anti-S antibodies in three COVID-19patients as early as 3 days post symptom onset (https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713). A case report recently published showed the kinetics of T cell subpopulations (TFH, CD4 and CD8) and SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in one COVID-19patient (Thevarajan et al., 2020). One COVID-19patient in Finland was shown to possess a low level of neutralizing antibody titer (Haveri et al., 2020). However, virus-specific T lymphocytes and their relationships with neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19patients remains uncharacterized.In this study, we collected blood from COVID-19patients who have recently become virus-free and therefore were discharged and analyzed their SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody and T cell responses.
Results
Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibodies in COVID-19 Convalescent Subjects
To understand immune responses to COVID-19, we assessed 14 patients who recently recovered from the infection. Their clinical and pathological characteristics were shown in Table 1
. All the patients initially showed mild symptoms via computed tomography (CT) scan and were positive with SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing. Of them, eight (patients 1–8) were newly discharged, whereas the remaining six were 2 weeks post discharge (follow-up patients, patients 9–14). Only three traveled to Wuhan city within the past 3 months. In line with the previous reports (Wang et al., 2016), two patients (5 and 10) showed lymphopenia (normal range is 1.1→3.2 × 10e9 cells per L). Sera from three healthy donors (Wang et al., 2016) were obtained before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (healthy donors 1–3). Three additional healthy donors (4–6) who had been in close contacts with the patients were recruited in this study. Human AB serum collected from healthy male AB donors in the United States (GemCell, CA) was used as a negative control.
Table 1
Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of the COVID-19 Patients
Pt#
Sex
Age
Travel in Wuhan
Fever
Fatigue
LymphocyteCount
Days in hospital
BT CT Scan
BT NA Test
Discharge CT Scan
Discharge NA Test
1
F
51
yes
yes
yes
1.1 × 109/L
33
patchy ground glass shadows on both lungs
P
improvement
N
2
F
42
no
no
no
2.5 × 109/L
27
multiple patchy ground glass and high-density shadows in both lungs
P
improvement
N
3
M
32
no
yes
no
1.7 × 109/L
36
exudative lesion of the right lower lung
P
improvement
N
4
M
49
no
yes
no
1.5 × 109/L
32
patchy ground glass shadows on both lungs
P
significant improvement
N
5
F
62
no
yes
yes
0.8 × 109/L
37
patchy ground glass shadows on both lungs
P
significant improvement
N
6
M
32
no
yes
yes
2.1 × 109/L
17
multiple ground glass shadows in both lungs
P
significant improvement
N
7
M
32
no
yes
yes
1.7 × 109/L
34
multiple ground glass lesions in the lower lobe of the right lung
P
significant improvement
N
8
F
57
yes
yes
yes
1.3 × 109/L
45
multiple flaky ground glass shadows in the subpleural areas of both lungs, some accompanied by consolidation
P
significant improvement
N
9
F
26
no
yes
no
2.9 × 109/L
12
right lung inflammation
P
normal
N
10
M
68
no
yes
no
0.7 × 109/L
14
multiple patchy ground glass shadows are seen in the left lung, and the upper lobe of the left lung is obvious
P
significant improvement
N
11
F
37
no
no
yes
1.9 × 109/L
12
double lung veins thickened
P
normal
N
12
F
29
no
yes
yes
1.9 × 109/L
13
ground glass in the pleura of the lower lobe of both lungs
P
normal
N
13
F
31
yes
yes
no
1.1 × 109/L
19
patchy ground glass shadows on both lungs
P
significant improvement
N
14
M
35
no
yes
yes
2.3 × 109/L
11
multiple ground glass shadows in both lungs
P
normal
N
Pt, patient; F, female; M, male; P, positive; N, negative; BT, before treatment; NA, nucleic acid.
Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of the COVID-19PatientsPt, patient; F, female; M, male; P, positive; N, negative; BT, before treatment; NA, nucleic acid.In order to detect anti-viral immune responses, we first constructed recombinant pET28-N-6XHis by linking six copies of His tag to the C terminus of NP in the pET28-N vector (Biomed, cat. number BM2640). Escherichia coli transformed with pET28-N-6xHis was lysed and tested by Coomassie blue staining to confirm NP expression at 45.51 kDa. NP was further purified by Ni-NTA affinity chromatography and gel filtration. The purity of NP was approximately 90% (Figure S1A). The presence of NP was subsequently confirmed by anti-FLAG antibody (Figure S1B). The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S protein (S-RBD) and main protease (Lan et al., 2020) were produced by a Baculovirus insect expression system and purified to a purity of 90% (Figure S1A).Using sera from patients and healthy donors, IgG and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 NP, main protease and S-RBD antigens were analyzed. There was no significant antibody response to main protease in sera from several patients (data not shown), suggesting that it may not serve as an antigen for humoral immunity. We thus focused on NP and S-RBD. The individual serum samples were then performed by serial dilutions to get optimal dilutions (Figure 1
A). Dilution of 1:50 was used for IgM and 1:450 for IgG. NP- and S-RBD-specific IgM and IgG antibodies were both detected in the sera of newly discharged patients, compared with healthy donor groups. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were also more obviously observed than IgM in the follow-up patients (9–14) when compared with healthy donors (Figure 1B). In addition, values from the serum dilution curves were calculated to determine the area under the curve (AUC) values. Compared to control sera, COVID-19patient sera showed significantly higher AUC for NP- and S-RBD-specific IgG antibodies (Figure 1C). Taken together, these findings indicate that COVID-19patients mounted IgG and IgM responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteins, especially NP and S-RBD, and also suggest that infectedpatients could maintain their IgG amounts, at least for 2 weeks after discharge.
Figure 1
SARS-CoV-2 NP- and S-RBD-Specific Antibodies in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals
(A) Titration of individual serum samples.
(B) Serological responses of 14 COVID-19 patients to recombinant NP (top) and S-RBD (bottom). Dilution of 1:50 was used for IgM and 1:450 for IgG.
(C) Data from the same experiments with (A) were presented as AUC.
(D) IgG isotypes of 14 COVID-19 patients to recombinant NP and S-RBD.
NP, nucleocapsid protein; S-RBD, receptor binding domain of spike protein; HD, healthy donor; Pt, patient; AUC, area under curve. The experiment was performed in duplicates. Date are presented as mean ± SEM. For HD 1–3, the sera were collected in 2018. For HD 4–6, the sera were from close contacts and collected in 2020. ∗p < 0.05, 0.05 < ∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
SARS-CoV-2 NP- and S-RBD-Specific Antibodies in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals(A) Titration of individual serum samples.(B) Serological responses of 14 COVID-19patients to recombinant NP (top) and S-RBD (bottom). Dilution of 1:50 was used for IgM and 1:450 for IgG.(C) Data from the same experiments with (A) were presented as AUC.(D) IgG isotypes of 14 COVID-19patients to recombinant NP and S-RBD.NP, nucleocapsid protein; S-RBD, receptor binding domain of spike protein; HD, healthy donor; Pt, patient; AUC, area under curve. The experiment was performed in duplicates. Date are presented as mean ± SEM. For HD 1–3, the sera were collected in 2018. For HD 4–6, the sera were from close contacts and collected in 2020. ∗p < 0.05, 0.05 < ∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.In addition, IgG isotypes was further tested in 14 patients and 6 controls. As shown in Figure 1D, anti-NP and S-RBD IgG was mainly IgG1 isotype, and the newly discharged and follow-up patients showed similarly amounts of anti-NP IgG1. Of interest, one patient (5) showed higher amounts of anti-NP IgG3, whereas anti-S-RBD IgG3 was detected in two patients (4 and 5). However, we did not detect IgG2 to either NP or S-RBD proteins (data not shown).
Measurement of Neutralizing Antibody Titers from COVID-19 Convalescent Subjects
Since the RBD of the S protein has been shown to bind to humanangiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (Zhou et al., 2020), the existence of antibodies against it may suggest neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To assess this, we performed a pseudovirus particle-based neutralization assay, since there was a significantly positive correlation in the neutralizing antibody titers between pseudovirus and SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2
A). As shown in Figures 2B and 2C, patients 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, all within the newly discharged group, had high neutralizing antibody titers. These results demonstrate that most recently discharged patients had strong humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Among the follow-up patients, all had neutralizing antibody titers, with the exception of patient 9 being negative. As expected, there was a significant correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and AUC of anti-S-RBD IgG, but not of anti-NP IgG (Figure 2D), suggesting that anti-S-RBD IgG might be predictive of serum neutralization capabilities in COVID-19patients. These findings suggest that most patients post discharge have serum neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Figure 2
Measurement of Neutralizing Antibody Titers in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals
(A) Correlation analysis of neutralizing antibody titers in COV1D-19 patients measured by pseudovirus and live SARS-CoV-2 (n = 20).
(B) Neutralizing curves of 14 COVID-19 patients measured by pseudovirus-based assay. The experiment with patients was performed in triplicates. The experiment with healthy donors was performed in duplicates.
(C) Measurement of neutralizing antibody titers of 14 COVID-19 patients by pseudovirus-based assay.
(D) Correlation between NAT50 and AUC of anti-S-RBD (left) and anti-NP (right) IgG (n = 14).
HD, healthy donor; Pt, patient; AUC, area under curve; NAT50, neutralizing antibody titers. Date are presented as mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05, 0.05 < ∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Measurement of Neutralizing Antibody Titers in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals(A) Correlation analysis of neutralizing antibody titers in COV1D-19 patients measured by pseudovirus and live SARS-CoV-2 (n = 20).(B) Neutralizing curves of 14 COVID-19patients measured by pseudovirus-based assay. The experiment with patients was performed in triplicates. The experiment with healthy donors was performed in duplicates.(C) Measurement of neutralizing antibody titers of 14 COVID-19patients by pseudovirus-based assay.(D) Correlation between NAT50 and AUC of anti-S-RBD (left) and anti-NP (right) IgG (n = 14).HD, healthy donor; Pt, patient; AUC, area under curve; NAT50, neutralizing antibody titers. Date are presented as mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05, 0.05 < ∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Cellular Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 Convalescent Subjects
To explore cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, we isolated peripheral blood monocytic cells (PBMCs) from the whole blood and phenotypically analyzed them by flow cytometry (Figure 3
A). We found that compared to newly discharged patients, there was a trend toward an increased frequency of NK cells in the follow-up patients (Figure 3B). However, there was no significant difference in terms of the percentages of T cells among those two groups and the healthy donors.
Figure 3
T cell Responses to Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Proteins in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals
(A) Phenotypic analysis of PBMCs from representative COVID-19 patients.
(B) Summarized data on the frequencies of different immune cell subsets in COVID-19 patients. HD, healthy donors (n = 2); D-Pt, discharged patients (n = 3); F-Pt, follow-up patients (n = 5).
(C) IFN-γ ELISpot analysis of COVID-19 patients to recombinant proteins. The experiments were performed in duplicates.
(D) Correlation analysis of the NAT50 and the numbers of NP-specific T cells (n = 14).
M protease, main protease; NP, nucleocapsid protein; S-RBD, receptor binding domain of spike protein; NAT50, neutralizing antibody titers. Date are presented as mean ± SEM.
T cell Responses to Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Proteins in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals(A) Phenotypic analysis of PBMCs from representative COVID-19patients.(B) Summarized data on the frequencies of different immune cell subsets in COVID-19patients. HD, healthy donors (n = 2); D-Pt, discharged patients (n = 3); F-Pt, follow-up patients (n = 5).(C) IFN-γ ELISpot analysis of COVID-19patients to recombinant proteins. The experiments were performed in duplicates.(D) Correlation analysis of the NAT50 and the numbers of NP-specific T cells (n = 14).M protease, main protease; NP, nucleocapsid protein; S-RBD, receptor binding domain of spike protein; NAT50, neutralizing antibody titers. Date are presented as mean ± SEM.To assess virus-specific cellular immunity, we then treated PBMCs with recombinant NP, main protease, and S-RBD, followed by IFN-γ ELISpot analysis. The results were considered positive if there was at least a 2-fold increase in the numbers of IFN-γ-secreting T cells in the subject than in the healthy donors. As shown in Figure 3C, compared with healthy donors, the numbers of IFN-γ-secreting NP-specific T cells in patients 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 were much higher than other patients, suggesting that they had developed SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses. Of note, patients 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 developed both strong humoral and cellular immune responses. Main protease-specific T cells were detected in patients 1, 2, and 5, while patients 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 showed S-RBD-specific T cells. Although the numbers of IFN-γ-secreting S-RBD specific T cells were much lower than those of NP-specific T cells, they could be detected in more patients than those for other viral proteins. In the follow-up patients, only patient 10, who showed lymphopenia before treatment, still had a high number of IFN-γ-secreting T cells in response to NP, main protease, and S-RBD (Figure 3C), which suggests that anti-viral T cells may not be maintained at high numbers in the PBMCs in the recovered patients. More interestingly, when combining all 14 patients in our analysis, there was a significant correlation between the neutralizing antibody titers and the numbers of NP-specific T cells (Figure 3D), indicating that the development of neutralizing antibodies may be correlated with the activation of anti-viral T cells. Thus, effective clearance of virus may need collaborative humoral and cellular immune responses.
Discussion
In this study, we characterized SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in recovered patients. Both were detected in newly discharged patients. In addition, the neutralizing antibody titers significantly correlated with the numbers of NP-specific T cells. These findings suggest both B and T cells participate in immune-mediated protection to viral infection. Our work has thus provided a basis for further analysis of protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and understanding the pathogenesis of COVID-19, especially in the severe cases. It has also implications in designing an effective vaccine to protect and treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.In our study, production of S-RBD-specific antibodies were readily detected in recovered patients. Moreover, we observed virus-neutralization activities in these recovered patients. Not surprisingly, a significant correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and AUC of anti-S-RBD IgG, but not anti-NP IgG, was observed. Anti-S-RBD IgG might be useful in analyzing serum neutralization capabilities in COVID-19patients. Our data are consistent with the work from other investigators (Zhou et al., 2020), in keeping with the role of humoral immunity in blockade of receptor binding during viral entry in host cells. Interestingly, S-RBD-specific T cell production of IFN-γ was also noted, suggesting that S-RBD also induced broader T cell immune responses. S-RBD, thus, is a promising target for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.Similar to a recent preprint (https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047365) published online after ours, the titers of neutralizing antibodies were variable in recovered patients, ranging from below detection (<30) to 1,936. Patient 9 did not exhibit significant serum virus-neutralizing activities. Thispatient, though with anti-NP and S-RBD IgM, did not have significant IgG or IgG1 production. Interestingly, thispatient had detectable virus-specific T cell function. The basis for the neutralization deficiency in thispatient and whether the patient can generate neutralizing antibodies thereafter needs further investigation. Nonetheless, in our study and the one mentioned above, most patients developed measurable neutralization antibodies after infection, suggesting that the viral infection does not curtail adaptive immunity. However, unlike the above-mentioned study, we did not find any correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and patients’ age, which could be due to our small sample size. Our results thus need further confirmation in a large cohort of COVID-19patients. In addition, our analysis could not differentiate CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses, due to the limitation in the amounts of PBMCs obtained and availability of instrumentation.
STAR★Methods
Key Resources Table
Resource Availability
Lead Contact
Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the lead contact, Chen Dong (chendong@tsinghua.edu.cn)
Materials Availability
The plasmid (pET28-N-6XHis) generated in this study will be made available on request from the Lead Contact without restriction.
Data and Code Availability
The study did not generate any unique dataset or code.
Experimental Model and Subject Details
COVID-19 patient blood samples
The blood samples of COVID-19patients and healthy donors were obtained from Chui Yang Liu Hospital affiliated to Tsinghua University in Beijing. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (the institutional review board at Tsinghua University) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. All studies were approved by the Medical Ethical Committee at Tsinghua University. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects for being included in the study. All patient data were anonymized before study inclusion. See Table 1 for full patient information, including age, sex, and health status.
Cell Lines
HuH-7 cells originally taken from a liver tumor in a Japanese male were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS. Cells were grown at 37°C in a 5% CO2 setting.
Method Details
Expression and Purification of recombinant proteins
The recombinant His-tagged NP of SARS-CoV-2 was expressed in E. coli by a T7 expression system, with 1 mM IPTG induction at 37°C for 4 h. The recombinant His-tagged S-RBD (amino acids 319-541) was expressed by a Baculovirus system in insect cells (Lan et al., 2020). Purified proteins were identified by SDS-PAGE gels and stained with Coomassie blue. Western blot was performed to confirm their antigenicity by mouse anti-His monoclonal antibody (Proteintech, HRP-66005).
Isolation of PBMC
PBMCs were isolated from anti-coagulant blood using Ficoll-Hypaque gradients (GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Philadelphia, PA) as previously described (Xie et al., 2018) under the biosafety level 3 facility in AMMS. To isolate PBMCs, blood diluted with PBS, was gently layered over an equal volume of Ficoll in a Falcon tube and centrifuged for 30-40 min at 400-500 g without brake. Four layers formed, each containing different cell types. The second layer contained PBMCs. These cells could be gently removed using a Pasteur pipette and added to warm medium or PBS to wash off any remaining platelets. The pelleted cells were then counted and the percentage viability was estimated using Trypan blue staining. Cells were used immediately.
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM ELISA
For IgM/IgG testing, 96-well ELISA plates were coated overnight with recombinant NP and S-RBD (100 ng/well). The sera from COVID-19patients were incubated for 1 h at 37°C. An anti-Human IgG-biotin conjugated monoclonal antibody (Cat. SSA009, Sino Biological Inc., Wayne, PA) and streptavidin-HRP were used at a dilution of 1: 5000 and 1:250, respectively, and anti-human IgM-HRP conjugated monoclonal antibody (Cat. bs-0345G-HRP, Biosynthesis Biotechnology Inc. Beijing, China) was used. The OD value at 450 nm was calculated. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated by Prism 7 (Graphpad).
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG1/IgG2/IgG3 ELISA
For IgG1/IgG2/IgG3 test, 96 well ELISA plates were coated (80 ng/well) overnight with recombinant NP and S-RBD. Plates were washed and the sera from COVID-19patients were incubated for 1 h at 37°C. After washing, an anti-HumanIgG1-HRP conjugated monoclonal antibody (Cat. C030248, BaiaoTong Experiment Center, LY), an anti-human IgG2-HRP conjugated monoclonal antibody (Cat. C030245, BaiaoTong Experiment Center, LY) and an anti-humanIgG3-HRP conjugated monoclonal antibody (Cat.C030246, BaiaoTong Experiment Center, LY), all validated by the company for their specificity, were used at a dilution of 1:4000 for 1 h at RT. After washing, TMB substrate solution was added. The OD value at 450 nm was calculated.
Neutralizing antibody assay
Pseudovirus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 S protein was produced as described previously (Deng et al., 1997). pNL43Luci and GP-pCAGGS were co-transfected into 293T cells. 48 h later, SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus-containing supernatants were mixed with at least 6 serially diluted serum samples from the COVID-19patients at 37°C for 1 h. Then the mixtures were transferred to 96-well plates containing monolayers of Huh-7 cells (Nie et al., 2020). 3 h later, the medium was replaced. After incubation for 48 h, the cells were washed, harvested in lysis buffer and analyzed for luciferase activity by the addition of luciferase substrate. Inhibition rate = [1-(the sample group- the cell control group) / (the virus control group- the cell control group)] x 100%. The neutralizing antibody titer (NAT50) were calculated by performing S-fit analysis via Graphpad Prism 7 software.
Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) ELISpot
IFN-γ-secreting T cells were detected by Human IFN-γ ELISpotpro kits (MABTECH AB, Sweden) according to the manufacture protocol. Fresh PBMCs were plated in duplicate at 150k per well and then incubated 48 h with 1uM of recombinant proteins. Spots were then counted using an ELIspot Reader System (AT-Spot2100, atyx). The number of spots was converted into the number of spots per million cells and the mean of duplicate wells plotted.
FACS staining
PBMCs were washed with PBS plus 2% FBS (GIBCO, Grand Island, NY), and then Fc blocking reagent (Meltenyi Biotec, Inc., Auburn, CA) was added followed by a wash with PBS plus 2% FBS. Cells were then incubated for 30 min on ice with anti-CD45 (H130) (BioLegend), anti-CD3 (OKT3) (BioLegend), anti-CD8 (SK1) (BD), anti-CD56 (HCD56) (BioLegend), anti-CD38 (HIT2) (BioLegend) and live/dead fixable aqua dye (eF660, eBioscience), washed twice with PBS plus 2% FBS and then stored at 4°C until acquired by FACS Verse (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA). Data were analyzed using FlowJo software (Version 10.0.8, Tree Star Inc., Ashland, Or).
Quantification and Statistical Analysis
Prism 7 software is used for statistical analysis. Student’s t test was performed for two-group analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
Authors: Patrick C Y Woo; Susanna K P Lau; Beatrice H L Wong; Hoi-wah Tsoi; Ami M Y Fung; Kwok-hung Chan; Victoria K P Tam; J S Malik Peiris; Kwok-yung Yuen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Anu Haveri; Teemu Smura; Suvi Kuivanen; Pamela Österlund; Jussi Hepojoki; Niina Ikonen; Marjaana Pitkäpaasi; Soile Blomqvist; Esa Rönkkö; Anu Kantele; Tomas Strandin; Hannimari Kallio-Kokko; Laura Mannonen; Maija Lappalainen; Markku Broas; Miao Jiang; Lotta Siira; Mika Salminen; Taneli Puumalainen; Jussi Sane; Merit Melin; Olli Vapalahti; Carita Savolainen-Kopra Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2020-03
Authors: Ya Peng; Ning Du; Yuqing Lei; Sonam Dorje; Jianxun Qi; Tingrong Luo; George F Gao; Hao Song Journal: EMBO J Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Ugur Sahin; Alexander Muik; Isabel Vogler; Evelyna Derhovanessian; Lena M Kranz; Mathias Vormehr; Jasmin Quandt; Nicole Bidmon; Alexander Ulges; Alina Baum; Kristen E Pascal; Daniel Maurus; Sebastian Brachtendorf; Verena Lörks; Julian Sikorski; Peter Koch; Rolf Hilker; Dirk Becker; Ann-Kathrin Eller; Jan Grützner; Manuel Tonigold; Carsten Boesler; Corinna Rosenbaum; Ludwig Heesen; Marie-Cristine Kühnle; Asaf Poran; Jesse Z Dong; Ulrich Luxemburger; Alexandra Kemmer-Brück; David Langer; Martin Bexon; Stefanie Bolte; Tania Palanche; Armin Schultz; Sybille Baumann; Azita J Mahiny; Gábor Boros; Jonas Reinholz; Gábor T Szabó; Katalin Karikó; Pei-Yong Shi; Camila Fontes-Garfias; John L Perez; Mark Cutler; David Cooper; Christos A Kyratsous; Philip R Dormitzer; Kathrin U Jansen; Özlem Türeci Journal: Nature Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bezawit A Woldemeskel; Abena K Kwaa; Caroline C Garliss; Oliver Laeyendecker; Stuart C Ray; Joel N Blankson Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jacob K Files; Sushma Boppana; Mildred D Perez; Sanghita Sarkar; Kelsey E Lowman; Kai Qin; Sarah Sterrett; Eric Carlin; Anju Bansal; Steffanie Sabbaj; Dustin M Long; Olaf Kutsch; James Kobie; Paul A Goepfert; Nathan Erdmann Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Alana F Ogata; Adam M Maley; Connie Wu; Tal Gilboa; Maia Norman; Roey Lazarovits; Chih-Ping Mao; Gail Newton; Matthew Chang; Katrina Nguyen; Maliwan Kamkaew; Quan Zhu; Travis E Gibson; Edward T Ryan; Richelle C Charles; Wayne A Marasco; David R Walt Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 8.327