ArticleCommunications medicine2022
Vaccines against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 provide T cell memory to the B.1.1.529 variant.
Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- No clear evidence of PFAS-induced immunomodulation in SARS-CoV-2-specific human T cell responses following vaccination.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Distinct HLA Haplotypes Are Associated With an Altered Strength of SARS-CoV-2-Specific T-Cell Responses and Unfavorable Disease Courses.European journal of immunology · 2025Article
- Cross-Reactivity Assessment of Vaccine-Derived SARS-CoV-2 T Cell Responses against BA.2.86 and JN.1.Viruses · 2024Article
- A multi-epitope/CXCL11 prime/pull coronavirus mucosal vaccine boosts the frequency and the function of lung-resident memory CD4Journal of virology · 2023Article
- Immunogenicity and efficacy of a novel multi-patch SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine candidate.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.529 potentially escapes immunity from vaccination via a heavily mutated Spike protein. Here, we analyzed whether T cell memory towards the B.1.1.529 Spike protein is present in individuals who received two or three doses of vaccines designed against the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsPBMCs were isolated from two- and three-times vaccinated study participants and incubated in vitro with peptide pools of the Spike protein derived from sequences of the original Wuhan or the B.1.1.529 strains of SARS-CoV-2. Activated antigen-specific T cells were detected by flow cytometry. In silico analyses with NetMHCpan and NetMHCIIpan were used to determine differences in MHC class presentation between the original strain and the B.1.1.529 strain for the most common MHCs in the European-Caucasian population.
resultsHere we show, that both CD4 and CD8 responses to the B.1.1.529 Spike protein are marginally reduced compared to the ancestor protein and a robust T cell response is maintained. Epitope analyses reveal minor differences between the two SARS-CoV-2 strains in terms of MHC class presentations for the MHC-alleles being most common in the European-Caucasian population.
conclusionsThe memory T cell response induced via first generation vaccination remains robust and is mostly unaffected by B.1.1.529 mutations. Correspondingly, in silico analyses of MHC presentation of epitopes derived from the B.1.1.529 Spike protein shows marginal differences compared to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.