4.8 Article

Structural assessment of HLA-A2-restricted SARS-CoV-2 spike epitopes recognized by public and private T-cell receptors

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27669-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM126299, AI129893]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [20-15-00395]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32100985]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals the structural information of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell receptors (TCRs) bound to their peptide-MHC targets and explains the mechanisms behind their selection of specific germline genes and recognition of different variants. This has important implications for designing vaccines to elicit pan-coronavirus immunity.
T cells play a vital role in combatting SARS-CoV-2 and forming long-term memory responses. Whereas extensive structural information is available on neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, such information on SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell receptors (TCRs) bound to their peptide-MHC targets is lacking. Here we determine the structures of a public and a private TCR from COVID-19 convalescent patients in complex with HLA-A2 and two SARSCoV-2 spike protein epitopes (YLQ and RLQ). The structures reveal the basis for selection of particular TRAV and TRBV germline genes by the public but not the private TCR, and for the ability of the TCRs to recognize natural variants of RLQ but not YLQ. Neither TCR recognizes homologous epitopes from human seasonal coronaviruses. By elucidating the mechanism for TCR recognition of an immunodominant yet variable epitope (YLQ) and a conserved but less commonly targeted epitope (RLQ), this study can inform prospective efforts to design vaccines to elicit pan-coronavirus immunity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available