Performance comparison of a flow cytometry immunoassay for intracellular cytokine staining and the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 test for detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2-Spike-reactive-IFN-?-producing T cells after COVID-19 vaccination.
PURPOSE: We compared the performance of an in-house-developed flow cytometry assay for intracellular cytokine staining (FC-ICS) and a commercially-available cytokine release assay (the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 Test [QF]) for detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S)-reactive-IFN-?-producin...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | INCLIVA |
| Repositorio: | r-INCLIVA. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica de INCLIVA |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:incliva.fundanetsuite.com:p16412 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://incliva.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/16412 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | COVID-19 vaccine Flow cytometry-based immunoassay QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 S protein SARS-CoV-2 T cells |
| Sumario: | PURPOSE: We compared the performance of an in-house-developed flow cytometry assay for intracellular cytokine staining (FC-ICS) and a commercially-available cytokine release assay (the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 Test [QF]) for detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S)-reactive-IFN-?-producing T cells after COVID-19 vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample included 141 individuals (all male; median age, 42 years; 20-72) who had been fully vaccinated with the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine (at a median of 114 days; 34-145). Prior to vaccination, 91 were categorized as being SARS-CoV-2-naïve and 50 as SARS-CoV-2-experienced. A whole blood-based FC-ICS using 15-mer overlapping peptides encompassing the entire SARS-CoV-2 S protein was used for enumeration of virus-specific IFN-?-producing CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells. The QF test (Ag1 for CD4(+) T cells and Ag2 for CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in combination) was carried out following the manufacturer's instructions. RESULTS: The FC-ICS and the QF assays returned significantly discordant qualitative results in both the entire cohort (P<0.001 with QF Ag1 and QF Ag2) and in SARS-CoV-2-naïve participants alone (P=0.005 and P=0.01, respectively). Discrepant results mostly involved FC-ICS positive/QF negative specimens. Overall, no correlation was found either between SARS-CoV-2 IFN-?- CD4(+) T-cell frequencies and IFN-? levels measured in the QF Ag1 tube (P=0.78) or between the sum of SARS-CoV-2 IFN-? CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell frequencies and IFN-? levels quantified in the QF Ag2 tube. CONCLUSION: The data suggest a greater sensitivity for the FC-ICS assay than the QF test, and urge caution when comparing SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immune responses assessed using different analytical platforms. |
|---|