4.7 Article

SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 caused HLA-A2+ CD8+ T cell epitope mutations for impaired cellular immune response

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.103934

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC2002003]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [U1801285, 81971301, 92169102]
  3. Guangzhou Planned Project of Science and Technology [201904010111, 202002020039]
  4. Zhuhai Planned Project of Science and Technology [ZH22036302200067PWC]
  5. Initial Supporting Foundation of Jinan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the immune properties of CD8(+) T cell epitopes containing mutations from the B.1.1.7 variant and analyzed the CD8(+) T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinees. The results showed that mutations in B.1.1.7 led to a decrease in CD8(+) T cell activation and a possible immune evasion.
Here, we evaluated the immune properties of the HLA-A2 restricted CD8(+) T cell epitopes containing mutations from B.1.1.7, and furthermore performed a comprehensive analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8(+) T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent patients and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinees recognizing the ancestral Wuhan strain compared to B.1.1.7. First, most of the predicted CD8(+) T cell epitopes showed proper binding with HLA-A2, whereas epitopes from B.1.1.7 had lower binding capability than those from the ancestral strain. In addition, these peptides could effectively incluce the activation and cytotoxicity of CD8(+) T cells. Our results further showed that at least two site mutations in B.1.1.7 resulted in a decrease in CD8(+) T cell activation and a possible immune evasion, namely A1708D mutation in ORF1ab(1707)(-1716) and I2230T mutation in OR-F1ab(2230)(-2238). Our current analysis provides information that contributes to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8(+) T cell responses elicited by infection of mutated strains or vaccination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据