Abstract
Background Vaccines remain the cornerstone for containing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.mRNA vaccines provide protection in clinical trials using a two-dose approach, separated by a three to four week gap. UK policy in 2021 is to extend the dosing interval from three to twelve weeks. There is a paucity of data in the elderly, even though these individuals are the first to receive vaccines due to risk of severe disease. Here we assessed real world immune responses following vaccination with mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2.
Methods We did a prospective cohort study of individuals presenting for first dose vaccination. Following the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, we measured IFNγ T cell responses, as well as binding antibody (IgA, IgG and IgG1-4) responses to Spike and Spike RBD. We also measured serum neutralising antibody responses to wild type (Wuhan with D614G) and B.1.1.7 Spike using a lentiviral pseudotyping system. We correlated age with immune responses and compared responses after the first and second doses.
Results Median age was 81years amongst 50 participants after the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Geometric mean neutralisation titres in participants over 80 years old after the first dose were lower than in younger individuals [79.9 (95%CI 35.9-177.6) vs 19.0 (10.7-33.8) p<0.01]. A lower proportion of participants 80 years and older achieved adequate neutralisation titre of >1:20 for 50% neutralisation as compared to those under 80 (11/26 versus 19/24, p<0.01). Binding IgG1 responses correlated with neutralisation, though IgG2-4 responses did not. Sera from participants in both age groups showed lower, though not statistically significant, neutralisation potency against B.1.1.7 Spike pseudotyped viruses as compared to wild type. SARS-CoV-2 Spike specific T-cell responses were similar across age groups and increased between vaccine doses. Following the second dose, 50% neutralising antibody titres were above 1:20 in all individuals and there was no longer a difference by age grouping.
Conclusions There was a significantly higher risk of a suboptimal neutralising antibody response following first dose vaccination with BNT162b2 in those above the age of 80, cautioning against extending the dosing interval in this high risk population.
Background
Vaccines designed to elicit protective immune responses remain the key hope for containing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In particular, mRNA vaccines have shown promise in clinical trials and have used a two-dose approach, separated by a three or four week gap1,2. However, duration of protection is not known and clinical trials provide few data on neutralising responses or efficacy in individuals above the age of 80. For example there were only twelve patients above the age of 65 evaluated for neutralising responses in a Pfizer vaccine study3. This is pertinent for settings where a dosing interval of twelve instead of three weeks is currently being used to maximise first dose administration4. Data on vaccine responses are vital in order to understand the efficacy of vaccination using this regime, particularly in groups under-represented in clinical trials, such as those aged above 80 years who are at greatest risk of severe disease and death5. In the UK, the government targeted this age group for access to the first vaccine available, BNT162b2. However, some weeks later the decision was made to extend the dosing schedule from 3 to 12 weeks, in order to vaccinate a greater proportion of the population during a period of substantial transmission. Other countries have been considering similar strategies.
Here we assessed real world immune responses following vaccination with mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b21 in unselected elderly participants from the community and younger health care workers. During the study, the vaccination was initially given under the manufacturer recommended schedule based on two-doses with a three week interval. This was then changed following recommendation by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) to a dosing interval of 12 weeks6. We measured T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 peptides by IFNγ FluoroSpot, serum IgG and IgA Spike antibodies, IgG subclasses 1-4, and serum neutralising antibody responses following the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine.
Methods
Study Design
Community participants or health care workers receiving the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine between the 9th of December 2020 to the 3rd of February 2021 were consecutively recruited at Addenbrookes Hospital into the COVID-19 cohort of the NIHR Bioresource. Participants were followed up for up to 3 weeks after receiving their second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. They provided blood samples 3 to 9 weeks after their first dose and again 3 weeks after the second dose of the vaccine. Consecutive participants were eligible without exclusion. The exposure of interest was age, categorised into 2 exposure levels-< 80 and > 80 years. The outcome of interest was inadequate vaccine-elicited serum antibody neutralisation activity at least 3 weeks after the first dose. This was measured as a dilution of serum required to inhibit infection by 50% (ID50) in an in vitro neutralistion assay. An ID50 of 20 or below was deemed as inadequate neutralisation. Binding antibody responses to Spike protein as measured by multiplex particle-based flow cytometry and T cell responses measured by IFNγ FLUOROSPOT assays were exploratory outcomes.
We assumed a risk ratio of non-neutralisation in the >80 years group compared with <80 years group of 5. Using an alpha of 0.05 and power of 90% required a sample size of 50 with a 1:1 ratio in each group.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (17/EE/0025).
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive analyses of demographic and clinical data are presented as median and interquartile range (IQR) when continuous and as frequency and proportion (%) when categorical. The difference in continuous and categorical data were tested using Wilcoxon rank sum and Chi-square test respectively. Logistic regression was used to model the association between age and the neutralisation by vaccine-elicited antibodies after the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The effect of age as a confounder was adjusted for. Linear regression was also used to explore the association between age, ID50, binding antibody levels, antibody subclass levels and T cell response after dose 1 and dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The Pearson correlation coefficient was reported. Statistical analyses was done using Stata v13 and Prism v9.
Generation of Mutants and pseudotyped viruses
Wild-type (WT) bearing 614G and B.1.1.7 bearing mutations del-69/70, del-144, N501Y, A570D, D614G, P681H, S982A, T716I and D1118H or K417N, E484K and N501Y pseudotyped viruses were generated as previously described7. In brief, amino acid substitutions were introduced into the D614G pCDNA_SARS-CoV-2_S plasmid as previously described8 using the QuikChange Lightening Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit, following the manufacturer’s instructions (Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA). Sequences were verified by Sanger sequencing. The pseudoviruses were generated in a triple plasmid transfection system whereby the Spike expressing plasmid along with a lentviral packaging vector-p8.9 and luciferase expression vector-psCSFLW where transfected into 293T cells with Fugene HD transfection reagent (Promega). The viruses were harvested after 48 hours and stored at −80oC. TCID50 was determined by titration of the viruses on 293Ts expressing ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.
Neutralisation assays
Spike pseudotype assays have been shown to have similar characteristics as neutralisation testing using fully infectious wild type SARS-CoV-29. Virus neutralisation assays were performed on 293T cell transiently transfected with ACE2 and TMPRSS2 using SARS-CoV-2 Spike pseudotyped virus expressing luciferase10. Pseudotyped virus was incubated with serial dilution of heat inactivated human serum samples or sera from vaccinees in duplicate for 1h at 37°C. Virus and cell only controls were also included. Then, freshly trypsinized 293T ACE2/TMPRSS2 expressing cells were added to each well. Following 48h incubation in a 5% CO2 environment at 37°C, luminescence was measured using the Steady-Glo Luciferase assay system (Promega). Neutralization was calculated relative to virus only controls. Dilution curves were presented as a mean neutralization with standard error of the mean (SEM). 50% neutralization-ID50 values were calculated in GraphPad Prism. The limit of detection for 50% neutralisation was set at an ID50 of 20. The ID50 within groups were summarised as a geometric mean titre (GMT) and statistical comparison between groups were made with Mann-Whitney or Wilxocon ranked sign test.
SARS-CoV-2 serology by multiplex particle-based flow cytometry (Luminex)
Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 N, S and RBD were covalently coupled to distinct carboxylated bead sets (Luminex; Netherlands) to form a 3-plex and analyzed as previously described11. Specific binding was reported as mean fluorescence intensities (MFI).
IFNγ FLUOROSPOT assays
Frozen PBMCs were rapidly thawed, and the freezing medium was diluted into 10ml of TexMACS media (Miltenyi Biotech), centrifuged and resuspended in 10ml of fresh media with 10U/ml DNase (Benzonase, Merck-Millipore via Sigma-Aldrich), PBMCs were incubated at 37°C for 1h, followed by centrifugation and resuspension in fresh media supplemented with 5% Human AB serum (Sigma Aldrich) before being counted. PBMCs were stained with 2ul of each antibody: anti-CD3-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC), clone UCHT1; anti-CD4-phycoerythrin (PE), clone RPA-T4; anti-CD8a-peridinin-chlorophyll protein - cyanine 5.5 (PerCP Cy5.5), clone RPA-8a (all BioLegend, London, UK), LIVE/DEAD Fixable Far Red Dead Cell Stain Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). PBMC phenotyping was performed on the BD Accuri C6 flow cytometer. Data were analysed with FlowJo v10 (Becton Dickinson, Wokingham, UK). 1.0 to 2.5 × 105 PBMCs were incubated in pre-coated Fluorospot plates (Human IFNγ FLUOROSPOT (Mabtech AB, Nacka Strand, Sweden)) in triplicate with peptide mixes specific for Spike, Nucleocapsid and Membrane proteins of SARS-CoV-2 (final peptide concentration 1µg/ml/peptide, Miltenyi Biotech) and an unstimulated and positive control mix (containing anti-CD3 (Mabtech AB), Staphylococcus Enterotoxin B (SEB), Phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) (all Sigma Aldrich)) at 37ºC in a humidified CO2 atmosphere for 48 hours. The cells and medium were decanted from the plate and the assay developed following the manufacturer’s instructions. Developed plates were read using an AID iSpot reader (Oxford Biosystems, Oxford, UK) and counted using AID EliSpot v7 software (Autoimmun Diagnostika GmbH, Strasberg, Germany). All data were then corrected for background cytokine production and expressed as SFU/Million PBMC or CD3 T cells.
Results
Fifty-one participants received at least one vaccination, with median age 81years (IQR 81-84) and 33% of participants being female (Table 1). Sera from vaccinated individuals exhibited an increase in neutralising titres against pseudoviruses expressing wild-type SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein between the first and second doses (Figure 1A, B). Geometric mean neutralisation titre after the first dose was lower in participants 80 years and older than in younger individuals [79.9 (95%CI 35.9-177.6) vs 19.0 (10.7-33.8), p<0.01 Table 1, Figure 1C]. A lower proportion of participants over 80 years old achieved adequate neutralisation titre of >1:20 for 50% neutralisation as compared to those under 80 (11/26 versus 21/24, p<0.001).
Age showed statistically significant correlation with serum neutralisation of WT virus after the first but not second dose (Figure 1D, E). In those participants with suboptimal neutralisation (examples shown in Figure 1F), re-testing three weeks after the second dose showed that all responded, with neutralisation activity comparable to those who responded well to the first dose (Table 1 and Figure 1C).
Binding antibody responses to the wild type Spike were comprehensively measured using a particle based assay. IgA responses were detected both in convalescent sera and after both doses, with small increase between the two time points (Figure 2A). All IgG subclasses against Spike and RBD increased between vaccine doses (Figure 2B), as is observed in cases of natural infection. IgG1 concentrations were significantly lower in the >80 age group (Figure 2D) and IgG1 showed significant correlation with age in contrast to IgG2-4 (Supplementary Figure 1A). Spike specific IgA and IgG levels after dose 1 correlated with neutralisation (Figure 2C). More specifically, serum IgG1 responses to Spike correlated significantly with neutralisation, though IgG2-4 responses did not (Supplementary Figure 1B).
CD3+ T cells were stimulated with overlapping peptide pools to the wild type SARS-CoV-2 Spike in addition to Cytomegalovirus, EBV and Flu (CEF+) peptide pools in an IFNγ FluoroSpot assay to enumerate spike specific T cells. Following the first dose of vaccine only 2/27 participants had no detectable spike specific T cells (Figure 3A); of the remainder the average response was 106 SFU/million CD3+ T cells and median 55.1 (range 8.5-586). However, there was no statistical difference in responses between <80 and >80 years of age groups (Figure 3B, Supplementary Figure 2). Following the second dose only 1/20 individuals had no detectable spike specific T cells (Figure 3A). That participant did not have a detectable response following the first dose; of the remainder the average response was 598 SFU/million CD3+ T cells and median 320 (range 29.6-5811), a statistically significant increase from first to second dose (Figure 2A). Similar to the first dose, second dose T cell responses showed no statistical difference between <80 and >80 year groups (Figure 2B, Supplementary Figure 2). As expected, T cell responses to positive control stimulations and responses to CEF+ peptide stimulation were overlapping between dose 1 and 2 (Figure 2 B, Supplementary Figure 2). Sixteen of the 20 participants tested following a second dose had increased T cell responses, with variable fold change between participants. CD3+ T cell responses did not correlate with serum neutralisation after either dose (Figure 3C, 3D).
Given our observation that the participants 80 years old and older had lower neutralisation responses following first dose, we hypothesised that this would be exacerbated by the B.1.1.7 variant. We therefore examined serum neutralisation by age group against WT or the B.1.1.7 spike variant after the first dose (Figure 4). The adjusted odds ratio for achieving inadequate neutralisation against WT was 9.5 (2.3-40.2, p0.002) for participants 80 years old and older versus those younger than 80 (Table 2). The adjusted odds ratio for inadequate neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant was 12.2 (3.1-48.9, p<0.001) (Table 2).
Discussion
Here we have addressed an important aspect of rollout of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, where the second dose may be delayed due to supply limitations. We have shown that around half of individuals above the age of 80 have a suboptimal neutralising antibody response at least three weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2, associated with lower IgG1 concentrations. The second dose is associated with robust neutralising responses across all age groups. Binding IgA antibodies to Spike and RBD increased following the first and second doses, mirroring levels seen in natural infection. IgG3 responses to Spike and RBD increased predominantly after the second dose. Spike specific T cell responses, measured by IFNγ secretion, were also significantly lower in the over 80 age group. As expected from previous studies7,12, sera from participants in both age groupings indicated modestly lower neutralisation potency against B.1.1.7 Spike pseudotyped viruses as compared to wild type. Consistent with this a greater proportion of individuals in the over 80 age group moved into the poor neutralisation category following first dose when considering B.1.1.7 (72.0% versus 57.7%).
In a clinical study specifically looking at older adults vaccinated with BNT162b2 the GMT (geometric mean titre) after first dose was 12 in a set of 12 subjects between ages of 65 and 85 years, rising to 149 seven days after the second dose 3. Furthermore, in the Moderna 1273 mRNA vaccine study in older individuals (above 55 years), neutralisation was only detectable after the second dose, whilst binding antibodies were detectable after both doses13.
Immune senescence is a well described phenomenon whereby responses to pathogens14 and indeed vaccines are impaired/dysregulated with age15. As an example, effective seasonal influenza vaccination of the elderly is a significant public health challenge due to greater morbidity and mortality in this group. Lower neutralizing antibody titres using standard dose influenza vaccines in elderly individuals has been addressed by using higher dose vaccine 16. As such it is not surprising that while a single dose of BNT162b2 failed to induce neutralizing antibodies in a proportion of participants, a second dose 3 weeks later resulted in all participants mounting a neutralizing antibody response. In aged mice the ChAdOx nCov-19 vaccine responses were reported as being lower as compared to younger mice, and this was overcome by booster dosing17. Importantly the UK REACT study, an observational community based study, has shown that the prevalence of IgG positivity was 34.7% 21 days after the first dose of BNT162b2 in those over 80 years18. Similarly, REACT reported that IgG positivity increased to 87.8% after the second dose. Although it remains unclear how this will translate into protection from COVID-19, it raises concerns about if those over 80 years will be adequately protected with one dose.
IgG3 has been reported to be dominant following natural SARS-CoV-2 infections, unlike the IgG1 dominance seen in other respiratory viral infections19,20. While IgG1 and IgG3 are both commonly induced by viral infection and associated with neutralization there is data suggesting IgG1 plays a lead role in neutralization of Influenza19, West Nile virus21 and HIV22. Interestingly, despite the dominance of IgG3 in SARS-CoV-2 infection, we observed a correlation between IgG1 and neutralization titres suggesting this is the major neutralizing subclass following vaccination.
The low IgG1 and neutralisation data may be attributable to immunoscenence in around half of over 80 year olds in this study. Immunosenescence may also be reflected in participants below 80, a minority of whom showed poor responses. Importantly, our data are relevant to the significant proportions of younger adults with immune dysfunction due to primary or secondary immune deficiency. Given the variability in neutralising responses and the data relating neutralisation activity with protection from infection that are emerging, it seems prudent to plan testing strategies aimed at identification of suboptimal responses in order to prioritise individuals to receive the second dose on time and possibly to guide boosting.
The ChAdOx nCov-19 vaccine was reported as being effective even with a twelve week gap between the two doses23. However, this study was in younger individuals, and would be consistent with neutralising responses in those under 80 in our study. It is possible that the suboptimal responses we observed may improve after 3 weeks in older individuals. Even if this is the case, individuals over 80 are nonetheless likely to be at prolonged increased risk for infection, based on studies in non-human primates linking protection from SARS-CoV-2 challenge with neutralising antibody titres, but not T cell responses 24,25. In further support for the role of neutralising antibodies are two clinical studies: (i) use of early convalescent sera in COVID-19 disease within elderly patients demonstrating improved clinical outcomes26 and (ii) the recent report of suboptimal efficacy of the ChAdOx nCov-19 vaccine against prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the context of the variant 501Y.V227. Although the second dose was able to boost neutralising antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 infection during an enlarged window period between doses in the presence of only partially protective antibody titres could also lead to favourable conditions for selecting escape mutations8,28. It therefore will be important to follow all participants over the following months to measure the kinetics of neutralisation activity as well as to gather data on re-infection. The arrival of new variants with the potential to compromise vaccines29-32 may mandate regular re-vaccination with modified vaccine preparations.
Limitations
We were not able to ascertain prior infection in our participants. However, the lack of neutralisation and low antibody levels following vaccination in a significant proportion of the over 80 group argues against prior infection in the poor responders. We were also unable to adjust for confounders such as immune suppression and comorbidities as these data were not collected. They may also be other unmeasured confounders that may modify the association between age and neutralisation status. However, consecutive participants were recruited without exclusion. Although participant numbers were modest our sample size estimation suggest we recruited sufficient participants to limit type I error. In addition, the numbers of elderly participants undergoing assessment for neutralisation and T cell responses was greater than manufacturer-sponsored vaccine studies3, 9.
Conclusion
Whilst significant public health impact of vaccines is anticipated, and indeed has been demonstrated after the first dose33, a significant proportion of individuals above 80 appear to require the second dose to achieve in vitro virus neutralisation. Our data caution against extending the dosing interval of BNT162b2 in the elderly population, particularly during periods of high transmission, where there is the added risk from variants that are less susceptible to vaccine-elicited neutralising antibodies7,29,30,32. If rapid antibody tests are able to differentiate those in risk groups who have satisfactory neutralisation responses then a widened dosing interval may be appropriate under certain circumstances.
Data Availability
Data are available on request from the corresponding author
The CITIID-NIHR BioResource COVID-19 Collaboration
Principal Investigators
Stephen Baker2, 3, Gordon Dougan2, 3, Christoph Hess2,3,28,29, Nathalie Kingston22, 12, Paul J. Lehner2, 3, Paul A. Lyons2, 3, Nicholas J. Matheson2, 3, Willem H. Owehand22, Caroline Saunders21, Charlotte Summers,3,26,27,30, James E.D. Thaventhiran2, 3, 24, Mark Toshner3, 26, 27, Michael P. Weekes2, Patrick Maxwell22,30, Ashley Shaw30
CRF and Volunteer Research Nurses
Ashlea Bucke21, Jo Calder21, Laura Canna21, Jason Domingo21, Anne Elmer21, Stewart Fuller21, Julie Harris43, Sarah Hewitt21, Jane Kennet21, Sherly Jose21, Jenny Kourampa21, Anne Meadows21, Criona O’Brien43, Jane Price21, Cherry Publico21, Rebecca Rastall21, Carla Ribeiro21, Jane Rowlands21, Valentina Ruffolo21, Hugo Tordesillas21,
Sample Logistics
Ben Bullman2, Benjamin J. Dunmore3, Stuart Fawke32, Stefan Gräf 3,22,12, Josh Hodgson3, Christopher Huang3, Kelvin Hunter2, 3, Emma Jones31, Ekaterina Legchenko3, Cecilia Matara3, Jennifer Martin3, Federica Mescia2, 3, Ciara O’Donnell3, Linda Pointon3, Nicole Pond2, 3, Joy Shih3, Rachel Sutcliffe3, Tobias Tilly3, Carmen Treacy3, Zhen Tong3, Jennifer Wood3, Marta Wylot38,
Sample Processing and Data Acquisition
Laura Bergamaschi2, 3, Ariana Betancourt2, 3, Georgie Bower2, 3, Chiara Cossetti2, 3, Aloka De Sa3, Madeline Epping2, 3, Stuart Fawke32, Nick Gleadall22, Richard Grenfell33, Andrew Hinch2,3, Oisin Huhn34, Sarah Jackson3, Isobel Jarvis3, Daniel Lewis3, Joe Marsden3, Francesca Nice41, Georgina Okecha3, Ommar Omarjee3, Marianne Perera3, Nathan Richoz3, Veronika Romashova2,3, Natalia Savinykh Yarkoni3, Rahul Sharma3, Luca Stefanucci22, Jonathan Stephens22, Mateusz Strezlecki33, Lori Turner2, 3,
Clinical Data Collection
Eckart M.D.D. De Bie3, Katherine Bunclark3, Masa Josipovic42, Michael Mackay3, Federica Mescia2,3, Alice Michael27, Sabrina Rossi37, Mayurun Selvan3, Sarah Spencer15, Cissy Yong37
Royal Papworth Hospital ICU
Ali Ansaripour27, Alice Michael27, Lucy Mwaura27, Caroline Patterson27, Gary Polwarth27
Addenbrooke’s Hospital ICU
Petra Polgarova30, Giovanni di Stefano30
Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust
Codie Fahey36, Rachel Michel36
ANPC and Centre for Molecular Medicine and Innovative Therapeutics
Sze-How Bong23, Jerome D. Coudert35, Elaine Holmes39
NIHR BioResource
John Allison22,12, Helen Butcher12,40, Daniela Caputo12,40, Debbie Clapham-Riley12,40, Eleanor Dewhurst12,40, Anita Furlong12,40, Barbara Graves12,40, Jennifer Gray12,40, Tasmin Ivers12,40, Mary Kasanicki12,30, Emma Le Gresley12,40, Rachel Linger12,40, Sarah Meloy12,40, Francesca Muldoon12,40, Nigel Ovington22,12, Sofia Papadia12,40, Isabel Phelan12,40, Hannah Stark12,40, Kathleen E Stirrups22,12, Paul Townsend22,12, Neil Walker22,12, Jennifer Webster12,40.
21. Cambridge Clinical Research Centre, NIHR Clinical Research Facility, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
22. University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
23. Australian National Phenome Centre, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia WA 6150, Australia
24. MRC Toxicology Unit, School of Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QR, UK
25. R&D Department, Hycult Biotech, 5405 PD Uden, The Netherlands
26. Heart and Lung Research Institute, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
27. Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
28. Department of Biomedicine, University and University Hospital Basel, 4031Basel, Switzerland
29. Botnar Research Centre for Child Health (BRCCH) University Basel & ETH Zurich, 4058 Basel, Switzerland
30. Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
31. Department of Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ES, UK
32. Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0XY, UK
33. Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK
34. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The Rosie Maternity Hospital, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SW, UK
35. Centre for Molecular Medicine and Innovative Therapeutics, Health Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia
36. Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust, Fulbourn Hospital, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB21 5EF, UK
37. Department of Surgery, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
38. Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1QW, UK
39. Centre of Computational and Systems Medicine, Health Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Harry Perkins Building, Perth, WA 6150, Australia
40. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Occupational Health Department. We would also like to thank the NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility and staff at CUH, Petra Mlcochova, Martin Potts, Ben Krishna, Marianne Perera and Georgina Okecha. We would like to thank James Nathan, Leo James and John Briggs. We thank Dr James Voss for the kind gift of HeLa cells stably expressing ACE2. RKG is supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship in Clinical Science (WT108082AIA). DAC is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD Research Fellowship. KGCS is the recipient of a Wellcome Investigator Award (200871/Z/16/Z). This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit (CCTU), the NIHR BioResource and Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. IATM is funded by a SANTHE award.
Footnotes
↵4 The CITIID-NIHR BioResource COVID-19 Collaboration, see appendix 1 for author list
larger numbers