Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier infections with common coronaviruses in a large part of the world population

Johannes M. Dijkstra; Keiichiro Hashimoto

doi:10.12688/f1000research.23458.2

Home Browse Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Brief Report

Revised

Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier infections with common coronaviruses in a large part of the world population

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Johannes M. Dijkstra ¹, Keiichiro Hashimoto¹

PUBLISHED 17 Jul 2020

Author details Author details

¹ Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

Johannes M. Dijkstra
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Keiichiro Hashimoto
Roles: Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.

This article is included in the Coronavirus collection.

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus agent of the COVID-19 pandemic causing high mortalities. In contrast, the widely spread human coronaviruses OC43, HKU1, 229E, and NL63 tend to cause only mild symptoms. The present study shows, by in silico analysis, that these common human viruses are expected to induce immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 by sharing protein fragments (antigen epitopes) for presentation to the immune system by MHC class I. A list of such epitopes is provided. The number of these epitopes and the prevalence of the common coronaviruses suggest that a large part of the world population has some degree of specific immunity against SARS-CoV-2 already, even without having been infected by that virus. For inducing protection, booster vaccinations enhancing existing immunity are less demanding than primary vaccinations against new antigens. Therefore, for the discussion on vaccination strategies against COVID-19, the available immune memory against related viruses should be part of the consideration.

Keywords

Coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, OC43, HKU1, 229E, NL63, MHC class I, Immunology, Vaccination

Corresponding author: Johannes M. Dijkstra

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2020 Dijkstra JM and Hashimoto K. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Dijkstra JM and Hashimoto K. Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier infections with common coronaviruses in a large part of the world population [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:285 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.2) First published: 23 Apr 2020, 9:285 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.1) Latest published: 17 Jul 2020, 9:285 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Based on requests of the reviewers, we now have added more background information and references to the article. In Table 1, we added software predictions for HLA-C binding. In the Notifications section, in line with the comments by the reviewers, we additionally included some new information that appeared after the initial submission of our article.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Anna Gil and Liisa K. Selin
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Andrea J. Sant

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses

From the end of 2019, the world experienced the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; aka 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV). SARS-CoV-2 shares ~80% nucleotide identity with SARS-CoV-1 (aka SARS-CoV), the causative agent of the SARS epidemy from 2002, and is even more similar to some coronaviruses in bats (Andersen et al., 2020; Ceraolo & Giorgi, 2020; Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). Coronaviruses are membrane-enveloped positive-strand RNA viruses with, for an RNA virus, a large genome of ~30 kb. That genome encodes several structural components of the virion including the nucleocapsid protein N and the membrane proteins S (spike), M, and E, plus also a number of nonstructural proteins involved in RNA replication and other—partly unknown—functions (Weiss & Navas-Martin, 2005). The coronaviruses infecting humans belong to the serological/phylogenetic clades group I (alphacoronaviruses) and group II (betacoronaviruses); group I includes HCoV-229E (human coronavirus 229E) and HCoV-NL63, while group II includes SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1. The viruses SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV, on average, cause the most severe symptoms, and their outbreaks were successfully monitored and halted. At the other end of the spectrum, the viruses HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL-63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1 tend to cause only mild symptoms and are very common.

Prevalence and associated disease of the common human coronaviruses 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html) states: “Common human coronaviruses, including types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1, usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, like the common cold. Most people get infected with one or more of these viruses at some point in their lives.” The same agency lists the common symptoms caused by these viruses as runny nose, sore throat, headache, fever, cough, and general feeling of being unwell, but also explains that they occasionally cause lower-respiratory tract illnesses, such as pneumonia or bronchitis. The viruses 229E and OC43 have been known since the 1960s (reviewed in Kahn & McIntosh, 2005), but NL63 (van der Hoek et al., 2004) and HKU1 (Woo et al., 2005) were only (conclusively) identified following the rise in interest in coronaviruses in the wake of the SARS epidemy. These common coronaviruses are believed to be the second most common cause of the common cold (Mäkelä et al., 1998). In the U.S.A., a 3-year RT-PCR surveillance of respiratory samples of patients revealed that the four viruses 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 were present at levels varying by season and region, with all individual viruses peaking at >3% prevalence in each investigated region (Midwest, Northeast, South, West); co-infection with other coronaviruses was found in only ~2% of infected cases, but co-infection with another respiratory virus was found in a substantial ~30% of infected cases (Killerby et al., 2018). This pattern was reminiscent of findings in the United Kingdom (Gaunt et al., 2010) and Japan (Matoba et al., 2015). Serological investigations in countries as diverse as the U.S.A. (Bradburne & Somerset, 1972; Dijkman et al., 2012), China (Zhou et al., 2013), and Qatar (Al Kahlout et al., 2019), found that most healthy blood donors had antibodies against coronaviruses, supporting that these viruses are widespread indeed.

Since immune memory protection can be induced by related pathogens, as exemplified by the eradication of human smallpox virus (Variola) by immunization with a related “cowpox” virus (Vaccinia) (Plotkin & Plotkin, 2018), it is interesting to consider whether common human coronavirus infections may have induced some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2.

The possibility of matching linear epitopes between SARS-CoV-2 and the common human coronaviruses that may stimulate the immune system through MHC class I presentation

The major arms of immune memory concern antibody secretion by B cells, killing of infected cells by CD8⁺ T cells, and helper/regulatory immune activities (e.g. cytokine secretion) by CD4⁺ T cells. For a murine coronavirus infection in mouse, both antibody responses and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were needed to efficiently control the virus (reviewed by Weiss & Navas-Martin, 2005). In SARS-CoV-1-infected patients, B cell as well as T cell responses were observed (Li et al., 2008), and, in animal models of SARS, B cell responses (Bisht et al., 2005) as well as CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell responses (Channappanavar et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2016) were shown to have protective value. Notably, in most individuals who had recovered from SARS, SARS-CoV-1-specific memory CD8⁺ T cells persisted for up to 6 years after SARS-CoV-1 infection whereas memory B cells and antivirus antibodies generally became undetectable (Tang et al., 2011).

Based on theoretical considerations alone, it is difficult to predict effective B cell memory across different virus species (Qiu et al., 2020), which makes it a poor topic for our present study which is based on sequence comparisons. We just note that a recent study concluded that sera from people that likely had been infected with the common human coronaviruses 229E, NL63, OC43, and/or HKU1, possessed no or negligible cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 virus S protein (Amanat et al., 2020) and thus probably possess no neutralizing antibodies.

There may be some recognition of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes by CD4⁺ T cell memory derived from previous infections with common human coronaviruses. However, as discussed in the Results and Discussion section, the very limited lengths of identical sequence stretches between the viruses make theoretical predictions of such epitopes difficult, and therefore the current study only concentrates on potential CD8⁺ T cell memory.

For inducing CD8⁺ T cell memory, the core requirement is merely that an identical short peptide is presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I (MHC-I) molecules. MHC-I molecules present peptide fragments from intracellular proteins, thus also from viral proteins, at the cell surface for screening by CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cells (Neefjes et al., 2011). CD8⁺ T cells recognize the combination of MHC-I molecule with peptide by T cell receptors (TCR) that are unique per T cell clone, and if stimulated these clones can proliferate, kill the presenting (virus-infected) cell, and produce memory cells. MHC-I molecules are polymorphic in that they are represented by many diverse allelic forms that differ between human populations and individuals (Robinson et al., 2020), and mostly bind peptides of 9 amino acids (aa) length in their binding groove which is closed at either end (Bjorkman et al., 1987; Rammensee et al., 1995; Schellens et al., 2015).

In the present study, we analyzed whether there are linear 9 aa epitopes that are identical between proteins encoded by SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the common human coronaviruses. We found many of such epitopes indeed, and, by using prediction software, found that some are expected to bind well to certain MHC-I alleles. We therefore expect that common human coronaviruses can induce some level of CD8⁺ T cell-mediated immune memory recognizing SARS-CoV-2, and consider the possibility of enhancing that immune memory by vaccination.

Methods

Proteins encoded by a reported genomic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank MN908947; Wu et al., 2020) were compared with those for HCoV-OC43 (NC_005147; Vijgen et al., 2005), HCoV-HKU1 (NC_006577; Woo et al., 2005), HCoV-229E (NC_002645; Thiel et al., 2001), and HCoV-NL63 (NC_005831; van der Hoek et al., 2004) by performing BLAST homology searches at the NCBI database (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) and by making multiple sequence alignments using CLUSTALW software (https://www.genome.jp/tools-bin/clustalw); continuous stretches of 9 aa acids identical between SARS-CoV-2 and one of the other viruses were identified manually. All these shared 9 aa epitopes were screened by ANN 4.0 software at IEDB Analysis Resource (http://tools.immuneepitope.org/mhci/) for prediction of their affinity to a set of representative human MHC-I alleles.

Results and discussion

Table 1 lists the 9 aa epitopes that are identical between proteins encoded by SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the common human coronaviruses. Many identical >9 aa stretches were found with ORF1ab encoded polyprotein, one such identical stretch (of 12 aa) was found with the N protein of the other two type II coronaviruses HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1, and no such stretches were found when comparing with any of the other gene products; ORF1ab-derived mature proteins with such stretches, expected from cleavage of the polyprotein precursor (Wu et al., 2020), were the transmembrane protein nonstructural protein 4 (NSP4), 3C-like cysteine protease NSP5, RNA binding protein NSP9, RNA dependent RNA polymerase NSP12, helicase NSP13, 3’-to-5’ exonuclease NSP14, nidoviral endoribonuclease specific for U NSP15, and S-adenosylmethionine-dependent ribose 2’-O-methyltransferase NSP16 (Table 1). Sequence alignment figures of the ORF1ab and N proteins are shown in Extended data (Dijkstra, 2020a) with highlighting of the interesting epitopes. It is of note that the S protein, which is the prime candidate for inducing neutralizing antibodies (Cohen, 2020), is poorly suitable for inducing an MHC-I-restricted immune memory across the investigated viral species as between S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and S proteins of the common human coronaviruses there are no 9 aa matches, and, among the virus isolates compared in this study, only a single 8 aa match (DRLITGRL with HCoV-NL63 and -229E) (not shown).

Table 1. Stretches of 9 consecutive amino acids that are identical between SARS-CoV-2 and at least one of the common human coronaviruses.

Compared sequences were derived from the following GenBank accessions: for ORF1ab SARS-CoV-2, QHD43415; OC43, NP_937947; HKU1, YP_173236; 229E, NP_073549; NL63, YP_003766; and for N SARS-CoV-2, QHD43423; OC43, NP_937954; HKU1, YP_173242; 229E, NP_073556; NL63, YP_003771 Source positions indicate the N-terminal position of the depicted 9 aa sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab protein or N protein (see Supplementary file 1). The ORF1ab protein is only a precursor polyprotein, and the column Mature protein indicates the probable mature protein that possesses the epitope: 3CLpro, 3C-like cysteine protease; RdRp, RNA dependent RNA polymerase; Hel, helicase; ExoN, 3’-to-5’ exonuclease; NendoU, nidoviral endoribonuclease specific for U; O-MT, S-adenosylmethionine-dependent ribose 2’-O-methyltransferase. Yellow blocks indicate the presence of identical sequences in the respective common human coronavirus, and gray blocks indicate the absence of such matches. Orange blocks highlight those peptides with predicted IC50 values of <500 nM for one of the twelf investigated MHC-I alleles.

No predicted IC50 values of <500 nM were found for HLA-C*0401

			common human coronaviruses				IC50 prediction by ANN 4.0 program of IEDB software (only IC50 valuesof <500 nM are shown)
	Mature		Group II		Group I		HLA-A					HLA-B							HLA-C
SARS-CoV-2 source	protein	Sequence (9aa)	OC43	HKU1	229E	NL63	*0101	*0201	*0301	*2402	*2601	*0702	*0801	*1501	*2705	*3901	*4001	*5801	*0303	*0401
ORF1ab 3004	NSP4	`WVLNNDYYR`
ORF1ab 3005	NSP4	`VLNNDYYRS`
ORF1ab 3006	NSP4	`LNNDYYRSL`
ORF1ab 3007	NSP4	`NNDYYRSLP`
ORF1ab 3008	NSP4	`NDYYRSLPG`
ORF1ab 3289	NSP5 3CLpro	`TLNGLWLDD`
ORF1ab 3299	NSP5 3CLpro	`VYCPRHVIC`
ORF1ab 4208	NSP9	`ELEPPCRFV`
ORF1ab 4551	NSP12 RdRp	`KKDWYDFVE`
ORF1ab 4552	NSP12 RdRp	`KDWYDFVEN`
ORF1ab 4553	NSP12 RdRp	`DWYDFVENP`
ORF1ab 4554	NSP12 RdRp	`WYDFVENPD`
ORF1ab 4555	NSP12 RdRp	`YDFVENPDI`
ORF1ab 4594	NSP12 RdRp	`VGVLTLDNQ`
ORF1ab 4595	NSP12 RdRp	`GVLTLDNQD`
ORF1ab 4596	NSP12 RdRp	`VLTLDNQDL`
ORF1ab 4597	NSP12 RdRp	`LTLDNQDLN`
ORF1ab 4598	NSP12 RdRp	`TLDNQDLNG`
ORF1ab 4599	NSP12 RdRp	`LDNQDLNGN`
ORF1ab 4608	NSP12 RdRp	`WYDFGDFIQ`
ORF1ab 4609	NSP12 RdRp	`YDFGDFIQT`
ORF1ab 4661	NSP12 RdRp	`DLLKYDFTE`
ORF1ab 4725	NSP12 RdRp	`IFVDGVPFV`						`158 nM`
ORF1ab 4726	NSP12 RdRp	`FVDGVPFVV`						`10 nM`								`143 nM`
ORF1ab 4727	NSP12 RdRp	`VDGVPFVVS`
ORF1ab 4799	NSP12 RdRp	`FQTVKPGNF`
ORF1ab 4800	NSP12 RdRp	`QTVKPGNFN`
ORF1ab 4931	NSP12 RdRp	`TQMNLKYAI`						`278 nM`								`21 nM`
ORF1ab 4932	NSP12 RdRp	`QMNLKYAIS`
ORF1ab 4933	NSP12 RdRp	`MNLKYAISA`
ORF1ab 4934	NSP12 RdRp	`NLKYAISAK`							`198 nM`
ORF1ab 4935	NSP12 RdRp	`LKYAISAKN`
ORF1ab 4936	NSP12 RdRp	`KYAISAKNR`
ORF1ab 4937	NSP12 RdRp	`YAISAKNRA`
ORF1ab 4938	NSP12 RdRp	`AISAKNRAR`
ORF1ab 4939	NSP12 RdRp	`ISAKNRART`
ORF1ab 4940	NSP12 RdRp	`SAKNRARTV`											`58 nM`
ORF1ab 4941	NSP12 RdRp	`AKNRARTVA`
ORF1ab 4942	NSP12 RdRp	`KNRARTVAG`
ORF1ab 4943	NSP12 RdRp	`NRARTVAGV`													`468` `nM`
ORF1ab 4944	NSP12 RdRp	`RARTVAGVS`
ORF1ab 4945	NSP12 RdRp	`ARTVAGVSI`													`219` `nM`
ORF1ab 5006	NSP12 RdRp	`LMGWDYPKC`
ORF1ab 5007	NSP12 RdRp	`MGWDYPKCD`
ORF1ab 5008	NSP12 RdRp	`GWDYPKCDR`
ORF1ab 5009	NSP12 RdRp	`WDYPKCDRA`
ORF1ab 5010	NSP12 RdRp	`DYPKCDRAM`
ORF1ab 5011	NSP12 RdRp	`YPKCDRAMP`
ORF1ab 5012	NSP12 RdRp	`PKCDRAMPN`
ORF1ab 5043	NSP12 RdRp	`RFYRLANEC`
ORF1ab 5044	NSP12 RdRp	`FYRLANECA`
ORF1ab 5045	NSP12 RdRp	`YRLANECAQ`
ORF1ab 5046	NSP12 RdRp	`RLANECAQV`						`53 nM`
ORF1ab 5047	NSP12 RdRp	`LANECAQVL`																	`26 nM`
ORF1ab 5048	NSP12 RdRp	`ANECAQVLS`
ORF1ab 5049	NSP12 RdRp	`NECAQVLSE`
ORF1ab 5066	NSP12 RdRp	`YVKPGGTSS`
ORF1ab 5067	NSP12 RdRp	`VKPGGTSSG`
ORF1ab 5068	NSP12 RdRp	`KPGGTSSGD`
ORF1ab 5069	NSP12 RdRp	`PGGTSSGDA`
ORF1ab 5070	NSP12 RdRp	`GGTSSGDAT`
ORF1ab 5071	NSP12 RdRp	`GTSSGDATT`
ORF1ab 5072	NSP12 RdRp	`TSSGDATTA`
ORF1ab 5074	NSP12 RdRp	`SGDATTAYA`
ORF1ab 5075	NSP12 RdRp	`GDATTAYAN`
ORF1ab 5076	NSP12 RdRp	`DATTAYANS`
ORF1ab 5077	NSP12 RdRp	`ATTAYANSV`
ORF1ab 5078	NSP12 RdRp	`TTAYANSVF`									`245` `nM`			`29 nM`
ORF1ab 5079	NSP12 RdRp	`TAYANSVFN`																	`466 nM`
ORF1ab 5080	NSP12 RdRp	`AYANSVFNI`								`56 nM`
ORF1ab 5082	NSP12 RdRp	`ANSVFNICQ`
ORF1ab 5083	NSP12 RdRp	`NSVFNICQA`
ORF1ab 5084	NSP12 RdRp	`SVFNICQAV`						`85 nM`
ORF1ab 5085	NSP12 RdRp	`VFNICQAVT`
ORF1ab 5086	NSP12 RdRp	`FNICQAVTA`
ORF1ab 5087	NSP12 RdRp	`NICQAVTAN`
ORF1ab 5088	NSP12 RdRp	`ICQAVTANV`
ORF1ab 5140	NSP12 RdRp	`YLRKHFSMM`									`128` `nM`	`134` `nM`	`4 nM`	`47 nM`
ORF1ab 5141	NSP12 RdRp	`LRKHFSMMI`													`313` `nM`
ORF1ab 5142	NSP12 RdRp	`RKHFSMMIL`														`310 nM`
ORF1ab 5143	NSP12 RdRp	`KHFSMMILS`
ORF1ab 5144	NSP12 RdRp	`HFSMMILSD`
ORF1ab 5145	NSP12 RdRp	`FSMMILSDD`
ORF1ab 5177	NSP12 RdRp	`VLYYQNNVF`												`25 nM`
ORF1ab 5178	NSP12 RdRp	`LYYQNNVFM`
ORF1ab 5179	NSP12 RdRp	`YYQNNVFMS`
ORF1ab 5180	NSP12 RdRp	`YQNNVFMSE`
ORF1ab 5196	NSP12 RdRp	`DLTKGPHEF`
ORF1ab 5197	NSP12 RdRp	`LTKGPHEFC`
ORF1ab 5198	NSP12 RdRp	`TKGPHEFCS`
ORF1ab 5199	NSP12 RdRp	`KGPHEFCSQ`
ORF1ab 5200	NSP12 RdRp	`GPHEFCSQH`
ORF1ab 5201	NSP12 RdRp	`PHEFCSQHT`
ORF1ab 5202	NSP12 RdRp	`HEFCSQHTM`														`54 nM`	`10 nM`
ORF1ab 5203	NSP12 RdRp	`EFCSQHTML`
ORF1ab 5204	NSP12 RdRp	`FCSQHTMLV`
ORF1ab 5205	NSP12 RdRp	`CSQHTMLVK`							`227 nM`
ORF1ab 5217	NSP12 RdRp	`DYVYLPYPD`
ORF1ab 5218	NSP12 RdRp	`YVYLPYPDP`
ORF1ab 5219	NSP12 RdRp	`VYLPYPDPS`
ORF1ab 5220	NSP12 RdRp	`YLPYPDPSR`
ORF1ab 5221	NSP12 RdRp	`LPYPDPSRI`
ORF1ab 5222	NSP12 RdRp	`PYPDPSRIL`
ORF1ab 5223	NSP12 RdRp	`YPDPSRILG`
ORF1ab 5224	NSP12 RdRp	`PDPSRILGA`
ORF1ab 5225	NSP12 RdRp	`DPSRILGAG`
ORF1ab 5226	NSP12 RdRp	`PSRILGAGC`
ORF1ab 5227	NSP12 RdRp	`SRILGAGCF`
ORF1ab 5228	NSP12 RdRp	`RILGAGCFV`						`153 nM`
ORF1ab 5229	NSP12 RdRp	`ILGAGCFVD`
ORF1ab 5230	NSP12 RdRp	`LGAGCFVDD`
ORF1ab 5248	NSP12 RdRp	`IERFVSLAI`															`221 nM`
ORF1ab 5249	NSP12 RdRp	`ERFVSLAID`
ORF1ab 5250	NSP12 RdRp	`RFVSLAIDA`
ORF1ab 5251	NSP12 RdRp	`FVSLAIDAY`									`477` `nM`			`223 nM`
ORF1ab 5252	NSP12 RdRp	`VSLAIDAYP`
ORF1ab 5253	NSP12 RdRp	`SLAIDAYPL`						`21 nM`								`487 nM`
ORF1ab 5349	NSP13 Hel	`LCCKCCYDH`
ORF1ab 5350	NSP13 Hel	`CCKCCYDHV`
ORF1ab 5371	NSP13 Hel	`PYVCNAPGC`
ORF1ab 5372	NSP13 Hel	`YVCNAPGCD`
ORF1ab 5373	NSP13 Hel	`VCNAPGCDV`
ORF1ab 5387	NSP13 Hel	`LYLGGMSYY`
ORF1ab 5388	NSP13 Hel	`YLGGMSYYC`						`89 nM`
ORF1ab 5450	NSP13 Hel	`CTERLKLFA`					`303` `nM`
ORF1ab 5451	NSP13 Hel	`TERLKLFAA`
ORF1ab 5452	NSP13 Hel	`ERLKLFAAE`
ORF1ab 5453	NSP13 Hel	`RLKLFAAET`
ORF1ab 5559	NSP13 Hel	`LSAPTLVPQ`
ORF1ab 5560	NSP13 Hel	`SAPTLVPQE`
ORF1ab 5605	NSP13 Hel	`QGPPGTGKS`
ORF1ab 5606	NSP13 Hel	`GPPGTGKSH`
ORF1ab 5634	NSP13 Hel	`SHAAVDALC`
ORF1ab 5635	NSP13 Hel	`HAAVDALCE`
ORF1ab 5636	NSP13 Hel	`AAVDALCEK`
ORF1ab 5637	NSP13 Hel	`AVDALCEKA`
ORF1ab 5656	NSP13 Hel	`RIIPARARV`
ORF1ab 5657	NSP13 Hel	`IIPARARVE`
ORF1ab 5658	NSP13 Hel	`IPARARVEC`										`213` `nM`
ORF1ab 5716	NSP13 Hel	`RAKHYVYIG`
ORF1ab 5717	NSP13 Hel	`AKHYVYIGD`
ORF1ab 5718	NSP13 Hel	`KHYVYIGDP`
ORF1ab 5719	NSP13 Hel	`HYVYIGDPA`
ORF1ab 5720	NSP13 Hel	`YVYIGDPAQ`																	`312 nM`
ORF1ab 5721	NSP13 Hel	`VYIGDPAQL`								`206 nM`
ORF1ab 5722	NSP13 Hel	`YIGDPAQLP`
ORF1ab 5723	NSP13 Hel	`IGDPAQLPA`
ORF1ab 5724	NSP13 Hel	`GDPAQLPAP`
ORF1ab 5725	NSP13 Hel	`DPAQLPAPR`
ORF1ab 5771	NSP13 Hel	`EIVDTVSAL`									`16 nM`					`298 nM`			`463 nM`
ORF1ab 5772	NSP13 Hel	`IVDTVSALV`						114 nM
ORF1ab 5773	NSP13 Hel	`VDTVSALVY`
ORF1ab 5775	NSP13 Hel	`TVSALVYDN`
ORF1ab 5776	NSP13 Hel	`VSALVYDNK`
ORF1ab 5777	NSP13 Hel	`SALVYDNKL`
ORF1ab 5778	NSP13 Hel	`ALVYDNKLK`
ORF1ab 5779	NSP13 Hel	`LVYDNKLKA`
ORF1ab 5832	NSP13 Hel	`KAVFISPYN`
ORF1ab 5833	NSP13 Hel	`AVFISPYNS`
ORF1ab 5834	NSP13 Hel	`VFISPYNSQ`
ORF1ab 5835	NSP13 Hel	`FISPYNSQN`
ORF1ab 5855	NSP13 Hel	`QTVDSSQGS`
ORF1ab 5856	NSP13 Hel	`TVDSSQGSE`
ORF1ab 5857	NSP13 Hel	`VDSSQGSEY`
ORF1ab 5858	NSP13 Hel	`DSSQGSEYD`
ORF1ab 5859	NSP13 Hel	`SSQGSEYDY`
ORF1ab 5860	NSP13 Hel	`SQGSEYDYV`
ORF1ab 5861	NSP13 Hel	`QGSEYDYVI`
ORF1ab 5862	NSP13 Hel	`GSEYDYVIF`
ORF1ab 5880	NSP13 Hel	`CNVNRFNVA`
ORF1ab 5881	NSP13 Hel	`NVNRFNVAI`
ORF1ab 5882	NSP13 Hel	`VNRFNVAIT`
ORF1ab 5883	NSP13 Hel	`NRFNVAITR`													`65 nM`
ORF1ab 5884	NSP13 Hel	`RFNVAITRA`
ORF1ab 5885	NSP13 Hel	`FNVAITRAK`
ORF1ab 6031	NSP14 ExoN	`PLQLGFSTG`
ORF1ab 6198	NSP14 ExoN	`DAIMTRCLA`
ORF1ab 6199	NSP14 ExoN	`AIMTRCLAV`						`29 nM`					`24 nM`
ORF1ab 6307	NSP14 ExoN	`CLFWNCNVD`
ORF1ab 6320	NSP14 ExoN	`NSIVCRFDT`
ORF1ab 6321	NSP14 ExoN	`SIVCRFDTR`
ORF1ab 6322	NSP14 ExoN	`IVCRFDTRV`
ORF1ab 6323	NSP14 ExoN	`VCRFDTRVL`
ORF1ab 6341	NSP14 ExoN	`GGSLYVNKH`
ORF1ab 6342	NSP14 ExoN	`GSLYVNKHA`
ORF1ab 6343	NSP14 ExoN	`SLYVNKHAF`											`279 nM`	`154 nM`
ORF1ab 6344	NSP14 ExoN	`LYVNKHAFH`
ORF1ab 6345	NSP14 ExoN	`YVNKHAFHT`
ORF1ab 6346	NSP14 ExoN	`VNKHAFHTP`
ORF1ab 6347	NSP14 ExoN	`NKHAFHTPA`
ORF1ab 6389	NSP14 ExoN	`DYVPLKSAT`
ORF1ab 6390	NSP14 ExoN	`YVPLKSATC`
ORF1ab 6391	NSP14 ExoN	`VPLKSATCI`
ORF1ab 6392	NSP14 ExoN	`PLKSATCIT`
ORF1ab 6393	NSP14 ExoN	`LKSATCITR`
ORF1ab 6394	NSP14 ExoN	`KSATCITRC`																`331 nM`
ORF1ab 6395	NSP14 ExoN	`SATCITRCN`
ORF1ab 6396	NSP14 ExoN	`ATCITRCNL`
ORF1ab 6397	NSP14 ExoN	`TCITRCNLG`
ORF1ab 6398	NSP14 ExoN	`CITRCNLGG`
ORF1ab 6399	NSP14 ExoN	`ITRCNLGGA`
ORF1ab 6400	NSP14 ExoN	`TRCNLGGAV`
ORF1ab 6401	NSP14 ExoN	`RCNLGGAVC`
ORF1ab 6682	NSP15 NendoU	`YAFEHIVYG`																	`177 nM`
ORF1ab 6698	NSP15 NendoU	`GGLHLLIGL`
ORF1ab 6746	NSP15 NendoU	`VIDLLLDDF`
ORF1ab 6747	NSP15 NendoU	`IDLLLDDFV`
ORF1ab 6839	NSP16 O-MT	`MMNVAKYTQ`
ORF1ab 6840	NSP16 O-MT	`MNVAKYTQL`											`259 nM`
ORF1ab 6841	NSP16 O-MT	`NVAKYTQLC`
ORF1ab 6842	NSP16 O-MT	`VAKYTQLCQ`
ORF1ab 6843	NSP16 O-MT	`AKYTQLCQY`
ORF1ab 6844	NSP16 O-MT	`KYTQLCQYL`								`139 nM`
ORF1ab 6845	NSP16 O-MT	`YTQLCQYLN`
ORF1ab 6846	NSP16 O-MT	`TQLCQYLNT`
ORF1ab 6869	NSP16 O-MT	`GAGSDKGVA`
ORF1ab 6870	NSP16 O-MT	`AGSDKGVAP`
ORF1ab 6871	NSP16 O-MT	`GSDKGVAPG`
ORF1ab 6872	NSP16 O-MT	`SDKGVAPGT`
ORF1ab 6922	NSP16 O-MT	`WDLIISDMY`
ORF1ab 6923	NSP16 O-MT	`DLIISDMYD`
ORF1ab 6924	NSP16 O-MT	`LIISDMYDP`
ORF1ab 6943	NSP16 O-MT	`SKEGFFTYI`
ORF1ab 6958	NSP16 O-MT	`KLALGGSVA`
ORF1ab 6959	NSP16 O-MT	`LALGGSVAI`																	`11 nM`
ORF1ab 6960	NSP16 O-MT	`ALGGSVAIK`							`110 nM`
ORF1ab 6961	NSP16 O-MT	`LGGSVAIKI`
ORF1ab 6962	NSP16 O-MT	`GGSVAIKIT`
ORF1ab 6963	NSP16 O-MT	`GSVAIKITE`
ORF1ab 6973	NSP16 O-MT	`SWNADLYKL`
ORF1ab 6974	NSP16 O-MT	`WNADLYKLM`
ORF1ab 6993	NSP16 O-MT	`TNVNASSSE`
ORF1ab 6998	NSP16 O-MT	`SSSEAFLIG`
ORF1ab 7024	NSP16 O-MT	`HANYIFWRN`
N 106	Nucleocapsid	`PRWYFYYLG`
N 107	Nucleocapsid	`RWYFYYLGT`
N 108	Nucleocapsid	`WYFYYLGTG`
N 109	Nucleocapsid	`YFYYLGTGP`

In Table 1 (for Excel format see Extended data) it is shown that there are >200 linear epitopes of 9 aa that are identical between SARS-CoV-2 and at least one of the common human coronaviruses, most of them with OC43 and HKU1 which, like SARS-CoV-2, belong to the group II coronaviruses. In a simplified model, if people would have been exposed to many of these epitopes through common HCoV infections, this kind of equals immunization by a small intracellular protein under natural viral infection conditions. Whereas live virus is commonly considered the gold standard in regard to inducing strong immunity, unless the virus has some tricks up its sleeve to manipulate the immune system, which for common human coronaviruses is not well investigated, a research grant proposal suggesting this as a vaccination strategy would probably fail. Reviewers of such proposal would righteously point out that the strategy would not induce neutralizing antibodies, which for combating some viral infections can be very important, and that for inducing MHC-I-restricted cell-mediated cytotoxicity memory, ideally, a much larger protein or more proteins should be taken. Those reviewers would conclude that for such small intracellular protein to induce strong immune memory it would be too dependent on the MHC alleles of the immunized person and would need too much luck in regard to immunogenicity. Nevertheless, those reviewers would probably also agree that in most persons thus vaccinated some (small) level of immune memory protection would be established, even with such small non-surface protein (e.g. Polakos et al., 2001; Wasmoen et al., 1995; Zhao et al., 2005). Regardless of that this obviously is not the ideal way to induce a population-wide strong protective immunity (see the spread of COVID-19), together with other factors such as health and the number of encountered viruses (the strength of the viral challenge), the induced immune memory could make a difference for whether a person gets sick; at the population scale, it so may somewhat reduce the virus reproduction number. Importantly, by stimulating this HCoV-derived MHC-I restricted immune memory by vaccination (see below), it may become a more significant helper in fighting COVID-19.

Software predictions of MHC-I-binding epitopes

Based on combinations of experimental results and computer learning, various software has been created that with some degree of reliability can predict how efficiently peptides can bind to the grooves of various MHC-I alleles. In the present study, we used the artificial neural network (ANN) function (Lundegaard et al., 2008) of the IEDB Analysis Resource (http://tools.immuneepitope.org/mhci/) (Dhanda et al., 2019) which may achieve >75% reliability for predicting binding (Lundegaard et al., 2008). The software designers state that IC50 values of <50 nM and <500 nM are considered high and intermediate affinity, respectively, and are found for most epitopes known to stimulate cytotoxic T cells. Therefore, Table 1 only indicates the predicted IC50 values if lower than 500 nM. Table 1 shows these expected affinities for fourteen MHC-I alleles that are rather representative for sets of MHC-I alleles with similar binding properties (supertypes) and so represent a large part of the human MHC-I binding repertoire (Doytchinova et al., 2004; Lund et al., 2004): HLA-A*0101 (supertype A1), HLA-A*0201 (A2), HLA-A*0301 (A3), HLA-A*2402 (A24), HLA-A*2601(A26), HLA-B*0702 (B7), HLA-B*0801 (B8), HLA-B*1501 (B62), HLA-B*2705 (B27), HLA-B*3901 (B39), HLA-B*4001 (B44), HLA-B*5801 (B58), HLA-C*0303 (C1), and HLA-C*0401 (C4). It is of note that Li et al. (2008) found that a SARS-CoV-1 15 aa peptide sequence (their “Replicase 4701-4715” peptide) encompassing the SARS-CoV-2/HCoV-shared ORF1ab4725 and ORF1ab4726 epitopes that are predicted to bind well to the MHC-I alleles HLA-A*0201 and HLA-B*3901 (see our Table 1) was associated with a CD8⁺ T cell response against SARS-CoV-1 in humans. However, Li et al. (2008) also found such CD8⁺ T cell response associated with a SARS-CoV-1 15 aa peptide (their “Nucleocapsid 106-120” peptide) encompassing the SARS-CoV-2/HCoV-shared N 106, N 107, N 108, and N 109 epitopes for which our analyses did not predict MHC-I binding (see our Table 1).

The MHC-I binding affinity is considered the most selective in determining which peptides are presented, but also steps in the peptide processing and loading pathways may play selective roles which are difficult to capture in prediction software (Nielsen et al., 2005). We argue that, if such steps would be selective for presentation, in most cases they would probably not differentiate between the 9 aa epitope in the SARS-CoV-2 context versus the respective HCoV context, since most of those epitopes are within stretches that also show many similarities in the neighboring residues (Extended data).

Not all stable complexes of MHC-I with non-self peptides elicit a strong immune response, but “immunogenicity” features are hard to predict with meaningful reliability by in silico analysis (Calis et al., 2013), and in the present study we refrain from such predictions. Table 1 should, foremost, be understood as evidence of principle and a list of promising peptides, whereas only future experiments can prove MHC-I-mediated immune memory involving these or other peptides.

In regard to SARS-CoV-2 recognition, the common human coronaviruses may also induce some MHC-II-mediated immune memory by CD4⁺ helper T cells (as an example for shared epitope use by different coronaviruses see Zhao et al., 2016). CD4⁺ helper T cells can help stimulate cells involved in antibody or cell-mediated cytotoxic immune responses (Neefjes et al., 2011). However, for this topic, in the present article, we have refrained from detailed (software) predictions because comparison of MHC-II epitopes across different viruses is harder than for MHC-I epitopes. Namely, although the core of MHC-II bound peptides is also only 9 aa, the surrounding amino acids are also part of the bound peptide that tends to be 12–25 aa (Brown et al., 1993; Rammensee et al., 1995; Stern & Wiley, 1994) and can affect how the peptide interacts with the receptors on the CD4⁺ helper T cells (Arnold et al., 2002).

Vaccination potential

Immune memory means that a secondary immune response, upon renewed encounter with the same pathogen, is faster and stronger than the primary immune response during the first encounter with the pathogen. This is based on expansion of specific B and T cell clones, which specifically recognize pathogen(-derived) epitopes, with some of those cells becoming memory cells (Paul, 2013). This principle also causes that for a booster vaccination/immunization the requirements for efficiently inducing an immune response are lower than for a first vaccination/immunization (e.g. Du et al., 2008; Goding, 1996; Schulze et al., 2008). Especially in elderly people, who have a decreased ability to mount adaptive immune responses against new antigens, vaccination that stimulates an immune memory response may be beneficial (Kaml et al., 2006; Reber et al., 2012; Wagner & Weinberger, 2020). As discussed above, people’s past infections with common coronaviruses probably did not induce a B cell memory for making antibodies that can neutralize SARS-CoV-2. However, as the current study shows by analysis of linear 9 aa epitopes, these common human coronaviruses are expected to induce CD8⁺ T cells that may potentially kill SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and so can help eradicate the virus. There are several possible ways to exploit this probable immune memory. For example, if using RNA for immunization (Cohen, 2020), it may be best to also include SARS-CoV-2 genes that encode MHC-I epitopes that match those of the common coronaviruses. Alternatively, delivery of these epitopes to the MHC-I presentation system may be tried by peptide or protein based vaccines (e.g. Kohyama et al., 2009; Slingluff, 2011; van Montfoort et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2014), possibly in combination with some of the strategies that are currently being explored for non-specific stimulation of the immune system against COVID-19 (Kupferschmidt & Cohen, 2020). Protein (-coding) vaccines, for example encompassing a large part of the SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab product, would have an advantage over peptide-vaccines by including multiple possible MHC-I and also MHC-II epitopes, and be less dependent on MHC-allele matching and the quality of software predictions. Naturally, as for any new vaccine strategy, it should be carefully assessed whether the benefits of the induced type of immunity outweigh the potential deleterious health effects caused by, for example, an increased inflammation response (Cohen, 2020; Weingartl et al., 2004). Another fundamental concern is the maximum level of protection that can be generated by vaccination against coronavirus infections in humans, considering that infection of volunteers with HCoV-229E live virus gave only partial protection upon infection with the same virus one year later (Callow et al., 1990). Additional questions specifically related to the contents of our study are whether the history of previous—especially recent—infections with common coronaviruses, or people’s MHC alleles, affect people’s resistance to SARS-CoV-2. Most definitely, if discussing possible strategies for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, pre-existing MHC-I-based immunity derived from previous infections with common coronaviruses should be part of the consideration.

Notifications

Although we were not aware of this at the time of writing, a recent paper appeared with overlapping contents (Nguyen et al., 2020). The Nguyen et al. study was more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with global MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our study is a more concentrated focus on the MHC-I mediated memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory.

After we had submitted our study, two studies reported in vitro responses of T cells against SARS-CoV-2 peptides, which might represent memory from previous infections with common coronaviruses (Braun et al., 2020; Grifoni et al., 2020). However, both studies only used peptide mixes without identifying the responsible peptide, and at least several of the observed responses necessitated the allowance of peptide ligand sequence mismatches for T cell receptor to MHC/peptide binding (T cell cross-reactivity). Negative control donors, who with certainty had never been infected with common coronaviruses, were not available for the experiments, and conclusions that the observed responses were from T cell memory from previous coronavirus infections, and have in vivo relevance, should be considered only cautiously. Discussion of this topic is important because the two studies concluded a potential of the common coronavirus S proteins to induce CD4⁺ T cell memory (Braun et al., 2020; Grifoni et al., 2020) and CD8⁺ T cell memory (Grifoni et al., 2020), whereas these proteins do not share 9 aa identical stretches with SARS-CoV-2 (see our article and Supplementary Fig. 1 in Braun et al., 2020), and would arguably necessitate the allowance of peptide sequence mismatches (T cell cross-reactivity) for inducing an efficient MHC-mediated T cell response. As we pointed out in our article, although SARS-CoV-2 S protein is the prime vaccine component candidate for inducing neutralizing antibodies, for a more realistic chance to efficiently boost existing T cell memory it probably would be better to additionally include other SARS-CoV-2 proteins that do share identical MHC epitopes with common coronaviruses.

Regarding the potential of existing CD8⁺ T cell memory cells to help fight COVID-19 disease, a recent observation by Liao et al., (2020) might be interesting. Their study suggests that in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia, ZNF683⁺ CD8⁺ T cell clonal expansion may protect the patient from more severe disease.

Data availability

Underlying data

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome, Accession number MN908947: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947

Human coronavirus OC43, complete genome, Accession number NC_005147.1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_005147.1?report=genbank

Human coronavirus HKU1, complete genome, Accession number NC_006577: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_006577

Human coronavirus 229E, complete genome, Accession number NC_002645: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_002645

Human Coronavirus NL63, complete genome, Accession number NC_005831: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_005831

Extended data

Harvard Dataverse: Extended data. Sequence alignments of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab and N proteins with their counterparts in the common human coronaviruses, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CNPUPA (Dijkstra, 2020a).

Harvard Dataverse: Excel format version of Table 1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LOBKLV (Dijkstra, 2020b).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Al Kahlout RA, Nasrallah GK, Farag EA, et al.: Comparative Serological Study for the Prevalence of Anti-MERS Coronavirus Antibodies in High- and Low-Risk Groups in Qatar. J Immunol Res. 2019; 2019: 1386740. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Amanat F, Nguyen T, Chromikova V, et al.: A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. medRxiv. 2020. Publisher Full Text
Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, et al.: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020; 26(4): 450–452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Arnold PY, La Gruta NL, Miller T, et al.: The majority of immunogenic epitopes generate CD4⁺ T cells that are dependent on MHC class II-bound peptide-flanking residues. J Immunol. 2002; 169(2): 739–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bisht H, Roberts A, Vogel L, et al.: Neutralizing antibody and protective immunity to SARS coronavirus infection of mice induced by a soluble recombinant polypeptide containing an N-terminal segment of the spike glycoprotein. Virology. 2005; 334(2): 160–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Bjorkman PJ, Saper MA, Samraoui B, et al.: Structure of the human class I histocompatibility antigen, HLA-A2. Nature. 1987; 329(6139): 506–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bradburne AF, Somerset BA: Coronative antibody tires in sera of healthy adults and experimentally infected volunteers. J Hyg (Lond). 1972; 70(2): 235–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Braun J, Loyal L, Frentsch M, et al.: Presence of SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors. MedRxiv. 2020. Publisher Full Text
Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Gorga JC, et al.: Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLA-DR1. Nature. 1993; 364(6432): 33–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Calis JJ, Maybeno M, Greenbaum JA, et al.: Properties of MHC class I presented peptides that enhance immunogenicity. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013; 9(10): e1003266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Callow KA, Parry HF, Sergeant M, et al.: The time course of the immune response to experimental coronavirus infection of man. Epidemiol Infect. 1990; 105(2): 435–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ceraolo C, Giorgi FM: Genomic variance of the 2019-nCoV coronavirus. J Med Virol. 2020; 92(5): 522–528. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Channappanavar R, Fett C, Zhao J, et al.: Virus-specific memory CD8 T cells provide substantial protection from lethal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J Virol. 2014; 88(19): 11034–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cohen J: Vaccine designers take first shots at COVID-19. Science. 2020; 368(6486): 14–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Dhanda SK, Mahajan S, Paul S, et al.: IEDB-AR: immune epitope database-analysis resource in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47(W1): W502–W506. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Dijkman R, Jebbink MF, Gaunt E, et al.: The dominance of human coronavirus OC43 and NL63 infections in infants. J Clin Virol. 2012; 53(2): 135–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Dijkstra H: Extended data. Sequence alignments of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab and N proteins with their counterparts in the common human coronaviruses. Harvard Dataverse. V1. 2020a. http://www.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CNPUPA
Dijkstra H: Excel format version of Table 1. Harvard Dataverse. V1. 2020b. http://www.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LOBKLV
Doytchinova IA, Guan P, Flower DR: Identifiying human MHC supertypes using bioinformatic methods. J Immunol. 2004; 172(7): 4314–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Du L, Zhao G, Lin Y, et al.: Intranasal vaccination of recombinant adeno-associated virus encoding receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) spike protein induces strong mucosal immune responses and provides long-term protection against SARS-CoV infection. J Immunol. 2008; 180(2): 948–56. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gaunt ER, Hardie A, Claas EC, et al.: Epidemiology and clinical presentations of the four human coronaviruses 229E, HKU1, NL63, and OC43 detected over 3 years using a novel multiplex real-time PCR method. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48(8): 2940–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Goding JW: Production of Monoclonal Antibodies. Monoclonal Antibodies (Third Edition) Ed.: Goding JW. Academic Press Limited, London, 1996; 141–191. Reference Source
Grifoni A, Weiskopf D, Ramirez SI, et al.: Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1489–1501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Kahn JS, McIntosh K: History and recent advances in coronavirus discovery. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005; 24(11 suppl): S223–7, discussion S226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kaml M, Weiskirchner I, Keller M, et al.: Booster vaccination in the elderly: their success depends on the vaccine type applied earlier in life as well as on pre-vaccination antibody titers. Vaccine. 2006; 24(47–48): 6808–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Killerby ME, Biggs HM, Haynes A, et al.: Human coronavirus circulation in the United States 2014-2017. J Clin Virol. 2018; 101: 52–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Kohyama S, Ohno S, Suda T, et al.: Efficient induction of cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus by immunization with surface-linked liposomal peptides derived from a non-structural polyprotein 1a. Antiviral Res. 2009; 84(2): 168–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Kupferschmidt K, Cohen J: Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. Science. 2020; 367(6485): 1412–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Li CK, Wu H, Yan H, et al.: T cell responses to whole SARS coronavirus in humans. J Immunol. 2008; 181(8): 5490–500. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Liao M, Liu Y, Yuan J, et al.: Single-cell landscape of bronchoalveolar immune cells in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020; 26(6): 842–844. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Liu WJ, Zhao M, Liu K, et al.: T-cell immunity of SARS-CoV: Implications for vaccine development against MERS-CoV. Antiviral Res. 2017; 137: 82–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lund O, Nielsen M, Kesmir C, et al.: Definition of supertypes for HLA molecules using clustering of specificity matrices. Immunogenetics. 2004; 55(12): 797–810. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lundegaard C, Lamberth K, Harndahl M, et al.: NetMHC-3.0: accurate web accessible predictions of human, mouse and monkey MHC class I affinities for peptides of length 8-11. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008; 36(Web Server issue): W509–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mäkelä MJ, Puhakka T, Ruuskanen O, et al.: Viruses and bacteria in the etiology of the common cold. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36(2): 539–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Matoba Y, Abiko C, Ikeda T, et al.: Detection of the human coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63, and OC43 between 2010 and 2013 in Yamagata, Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2015; 68(2): 138–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Neefjes J, Jongsma ML, Paul P, et al.: Towards a systems understanding of MHC class I and MHC class II antigen presentation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011; 11(12): 823–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Nguyen A, David JK, Maden SK, et al.: Human Leukocyte Antigen Susceptibility Map for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. J Virol. 2020; 94(13): e00510–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund O, et al.: The role of the proteasome in generating cytotoxic T-cell epitopes: insights obtained from improved predictions of proteasomal cleavage. Immunogenetics. 2005; 57(1–2): 33–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Paul WE: The immune system. In Fundamental Immunology (seventh edition). Ed.: Paul WE. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2013; 1–21. Reference Source
Plotkin SL, Plotkin SA: A Short History of Vaccination. In Plotkin's Vaccines (7th Edition). Eds.: Plotkin SA, Orenstein W, Offit PA, Edwards KM. Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2018; 1–15. Publisher Full Text
Polakos NK, Drane D, Cox J, et al.: Characterization of hepatitis C virus core-specific immune responses primed in rhesus macaques by a nonclassical ISCOM vaccine. J Immunol. 2001; 166(5): 3589–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Qiu T, Mao T, Wang Y, et al.: Identification of potential cross-protective epitope between a new type of coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome virus. J Genet Genomics. 2020; 47(2): 115–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Rammensee HG, Friede T, Stevanoviíc S: MHC ligands and peptide motifs: first listing. Immunogenetics. 1995; 41(4): 178–228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Reber AJ, Chirkova T, Kim JH, et al.: Immunosenescence and Challenges of Vaccination against Influenza in the Aging Population. Aging Dis. 2012; 3(1): 68–90. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
Robinson J, Barker DJ, Georgiou X, et al.: IPD-IMGT/HLA Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48(D1): D948–D955. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Schellens IM, Hoof I, Meiring HD, et al.: Comprehensive Analysis of the Naturally Processed Peptide Repertoire: Differences between HLA-A and B in the Immunopeptidome. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9): e0136417. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Schulze K, Staib C, Schätzl HM, et al.: A prime-boost vaccination protocol optimizes immune responses against the nucleocapsid protein of the SARS coronavirus. Vaccine. 2008; 26(51): 6678–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Slingluff CL Jr: The present and future of peptide vaccines for cancer: single or multiple, long or short, alone or in combination? Cancer J. 2011; 17(5): 343–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Stern LJ, Wiley DC: Antigenic peptide binding by class I and class II histocompatibility proteins. Structure. 1994; 2(4): 245–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tang F, Quan Y, Xin ZT, et al.: Lack of peripheral memory B cell responses in recovered patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome: a six-year follow-up study. J Immunol. 2011; 186(12): 7264–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Thiel V, Herold J, Schelle B, et al.: Infectious RNA transcribed in vitro from a cDNA copy of the human coronavirus genome cloned in vaccinia virus. J Gen Virol. 2001; 82(Pt 6): 1273–1281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
van der Hoek L, Pyrc K, Jebbink MF, et al.: Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nat Med. 2004; 10(4): 368–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
van Montfoort N, van der Aa E, Woltman AM: Understanding MHC class I presentation of viral antigens by human dendritic cells as a basis for rational design of therapeutic vaccines. Front Immunol. 2014; 5: 182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Vijgen L, Keyaerts E, Moës E, et al.: Complete genomic sequence of human coronavirus OC43: molecular clock analysis suggests a relatively recent zoonotic coronavirus transmission event. J Virol. 2005; 79(3): 1595–604. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wagner A, Weinberger B: Vaccines to Prevent Infectious Diseases in the Older Population: Immunological Challenges and Future Perspectives. Front Immunol. 2020; 11: 717. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wasmoen TL, Kadakia NP, Unfer RC, et al.: Protection of cats from infectious peritonitis by vaccination with a recombinant raccoon poxvirus expressing the nucleocapsid gene of feline infectious peritonitis virus. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1995; 380: 221–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al.: Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol. 2004; 78(22): 12672–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Weiss SR, Navas-Martin S: Coronavirus pathogenesis and the emerging pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005; 69(4): 635–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Woo PC, Lau SK, Chu CM, et al.: Characterization and complete genome sequence of a novel coronavirus, coronavirus HKU1, from patients with pneumonia. J Virol. 2005; 79(2): 884–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, et al.: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature. 2020; 579(7798): 265–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Yadav M, Jhunjhunwala S, Phung QT, et al.: Predicting immunogenic tumour mutations by combining mass spectrometry and exome sequencing. Nature. 2014; 515(7528): 572–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Zhao P, Cao J, Zhao LJ, et al.: Immune responses against SARS-coronavirus nucleocapsid protein induced by DNA vaccine. Virology. 2005; 331(1): 128–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zhao J, Zhao J, Perlman S: T cell responses are required for protection from clinical disease and for virus clearance in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-infected mice. J Virol. 2010; 84(18): 9318–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zhao J, Zhao J, Mangalam AK, et al.: Airway Memory CD4⁺ T Cells Mediate Protective Immunity against Emerging Respiratory Coronaviruses. Immunity. 2016; 44(6): 1379–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zhou W, Wang W, Wang H, et al.: First infection by all four non-severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronaviruses takes place during childhood. BMC Infect Dis. 2013; 13: 433. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, et al.: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020; 579(7798): 270–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (3)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Jul 2020

Revised

Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2020

Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Author Response 02 Jun 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

02 Jun 2020

Author Response

In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which ... Continue reading In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which was after the journal edited our manuscript.

Also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto,

Hans Dijkstra
In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which was after the journal edited our manuscript.

Also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto,

Hans Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 28 Apr 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

28 Apr 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
... Continue reading Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
In the F1000Research publication system, two or three reviewers will comment on-line, after which we as authors (probably) have to modify the manuscript following their comments. If those comments are in line with yours, we can implement some of the information that you provided.
Having said that, we also like to keep the message simple and concentrate on the MHC-I restricted immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 that can be expected to already exist in many people as induced by common coronaviruses. Especially for the elderly this is interesting in regard to vaccination.

Sincerely,

Hans Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
In the F1000Research publication system, two or three reviewers will comment on-line, after which we as authors (probably) have to modify the manuscript following their comments. If those comments are in line with yours, we can implement some of the information that you provided.
Having said that, we also like to keep the message simple and concentrate on the MHC-I restricted immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 that can be expected to already exist in many people as induced by common coronaviruses. Especially for the elderly this is interesting in regard to vaccination.

Sincerely,

Hans Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Reader Comment 27 Apr 2020

Herve Bercovier, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Medicine Ein Kerem, Israel

27 Apr 2020

Reader Comment

Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ... Continue reading Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ( I do not need any additional paper for my career) if it was added to your interesting article.
1) data on serological cross reaction among the Coronavirus that last for a while. (For à review https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771v1.full.pdf ; and I have more papers including challenged studies in volunteer with old corona viruses, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/219/12/1913/5307035; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271881/pdf/epidinfect00023-0213.pdf) 2)CD4 data in a BioRxiv paper in healthy blood donors in Germany that cross with SARS-COV-2 peptides (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20061440v1.full.pdf ) and cross CD4 peptides among new coronavirses (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27287409/?from_term=Coronavirus+cross+protection&from_pos=6) 3) The hypothesis that these immune cross reactions ( CD8, CD4, antibodies) prevent colonization of SARS-COV-2 in children aged 0-9 years who are permanently infected in kinder garden and primary school with these old common cold corona viruses. These children do not seem, as a result, able to contaminate neither siblings nor parents. The remaining immune memory would also explain why children aged 10-19 years who can be infected, do not usually develop any invasive serious disease caused by SARS-COV-2 but are able to infect other children and adults. Likewise, it would explain why the COVID19 clinical presentation is worsening with age.

I hope you will consider my remarks and integrate these data into your paper and it could be then a very comprehensive article on the subject of potential cross protection between the different beta Coronavirus.

sincerely yours,

H. Bercovier.
Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ( I do not need any additional paper for my career) if it was added to your interesting article.
1) data on serological cross reaction among the Coronavirus that last for a while. (For à review https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771v1.full.pdf ; and I have more papers including challenged studies in volunteer with old corona viruses, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/219/12/1913/5307035; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271881/pdf/epidinfect00023-0213.pdf) 2)CD4 data in a BioRxiv paper in healthy blood donors in Germany that cross with SARS-COV-2 peptides (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20061440v1.full.pdf ) and cross CD4 peptides among new coronavirses (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27287409/?from_term=Coronavirus+cross+protection&from_pos=6) 3) The hypothesis that these immune cross reactions ( CD8, CD4, antibodies) prevent colonization of SARS-COV-2 in children aged 0-9 years who are permanently infected in kinder garden and primary school with these old common cold corona viruses. These children do not seem, as a result, able to contaminate neither siblings nor parents. The remaining immune memory would also explain why children aged 10-19 years who can be infected, do not usually develop any invasive serious disease caused by SARS-COV-2 but are able to infect other children and adults. Likewise, it would explain why the COVID19 clinical presentation is worsening with age.

I hope you will consider my remarks and integrate these data into your paper and it could be then a very comprehensive article on the subject of potential cross protection between the different beta Coronavirus.

sincerely yours,

H. Bercovier.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Author details Author details

¹ Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

Johannes M. Dijkstra
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Keiichiro Hashimoto
Roles: Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 17 Jul 2020, 9:285

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.2

version 1

Published: 23 Apr 2020, 9:285

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.1

© 2020 Dijkstra JM and Hashimoto K. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Dijkstra JM and Hashimoto K. Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier infections with common coronaviruses in a large part of the world population [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2020, 9:285 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23458.2)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2020

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Jun 2020

Andrea J. Sant, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA; David H. Smith Center for Vaccine Biology and Immunology, Rochester, NY, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25889.r63246

These analyses of potential cross reactive CD8 T cell epitopes between the current SARS-CoV-2 and “seasonal” endemic human CoV is useful and timely and the discussion is balanced.

There are several modifications that I believe would improve the clarify and value of the manuscript.

Based on the first sentence of the paragraph entitled “the possibility of matching linear epitopes…”, the authors sate that the two major arms of immune memory…are antibody and CD8 T cells” I believe this is incorrect, as CD4 T cells can directly impact lung pathology and contribute to both protective and pathological immune responses. In fact a recent paper uploaded to BioRxiv suggested that it was populations in the CD4 T cell compartments that correlated with disease severity. The authors should acknowledge that all three subsets of the adaptive response (B cells, CD8 and CD4 T cells) are likely to be important, but this manuscript focusses on CD8 epitopes.

The authors refer to the “software owners” when describing cutoffs. They are perhaps better described as software “designers”.

When discussing “Vaccine Potential”, the authors state that the secondary response is “faster and stronger”. This should be more accurately described, with some references, in a way that points out the higher frequency of responding cells during memory recall, and lower thresholds of TcR engagement needed for T cell activation, both qualities that contribute to a competitive advantage of memory cells.

Because the nature of CD8 memory to the different antigens screened by the authors is not known, the epitopes identified may or may not be targets of cross reactive memory recall. Therefore, the word “expected” should be substituted for “Potential” or some other word that indicates that the epitope list includes candidates but not expected epitopes.

I think the Table could be made quite a lot smaller and thus more valuable to the reader. The source proteins could be indicated as an abbreviation provided in the legend as could the various seasonal strains. The boxes could then be quite small, and either be positive or negative. In any case, an effort should be made to condense this table.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Immunology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

17 Jul 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we did not want to make a general audience too enthusiastic, while we simultaneously wanted to stress that there is a chance that this MHC-I-mediated immunity might (possibly after boostering by vaccines) give real protection.

You are correct that immune memory by CD4⁺ cells is not only relevant to their control of B cell and CD8 T cell responses, and we have rewritten the sentence and paragraph on the “major arms of immune memory.” As you state, our paper focusses on CD8⁺ T cell memory indeed, because that is the memory response that can be predicted most reliably by sequence analysis alone. In the notification section we now shortly discuss two papers that appeared after we submitted our paper, and which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2 recognizing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell memory derived from previous common coronavirus infections.

As requested, we have now changed “software owners” to “software designers.”

As requested, we now have added more references of an enhanced immune reaction after a second (booster) immunization. However, we do not feel that for our type of paper it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms of memory T cells besides just mentioning their involvement.

As for the words “expected” versus “potential.” We feel that we used the word “expected” correctly. Table 1, where all the peptides are listed, carries neither of these two words and has a very neutral title. In the text, some peptides are referred to as “expected” to bind a particular MHC molecule, a term clearly relating to the indicated software and literature. Given the large number of potential MHC-I epitopes shared between the viruses, we “expect” previous common coronavirus infections to have induced some CD8+ T cell immune memory that recognizes SARS-CoV-2; this claim is not about the protective value of this memory, and we feel, therefore, that the word “expect” is within reasonability.

As for the Table format. The format was chosen by the journal editorial team, and we can see that for some uses it has advantages. However, we understand your concern, and now have added an Excel format variant of the Table to the supplement section so that readers can more easily view and interact with the data.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

We are aware of the time and effort reviewing takes, and are very thankful of your thoughtful contribution. It lifts our spirits that you and the other reviewers consider our article a nice contribution to the COVID-19 studies.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we did not want to make a general audience too enthusiastic, while we simultaneously wanted to stress that there is a chance that this MHC-I-mediated immunity might (possibly after boostering by vaccines) give real protection.

You are correct that immune memory by CD4⁺ cells is not only relevant to their control of B cell and CD8 T cell responses, and we have rewritten the sentence and paragraph on the “major arms of immune memory.” As you state, our paper focusses on CD8⁺ T cell memory indeed, because that is the memory response that can be predicted most reliably by sequence analysis alone. In the notification section we now shortly discuss two papers that appeared after we submitted our paper, and which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2 recognizing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell memory derived from previous common coronavirus infections.

As requested, we have now changed “software owners” to “software designers.”

As requested, we now have added more references of an enhanced immune reaction after a second (booster) immunization. However, we do not feel that for our type of paper it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms of memory T cells besides just mentioning their involvement.

As for the words “expected” versus “potential.” We feel that we used the word “expected” correctly. Table 1, where all the peptides are listed, carries neither of these two words and has a very neutral title. In the text, some peptides are referred to as “expected” to bind a particular MHC molecule, a term clearly relating to the indicated software and literature. Given the large number of potential MHC-I epitopes shared between the viruses, we “expect” previous common coronavirus infections to have induced some CD8+ T cell immune memory that recognizes SARS-CoV-2; this claim is not about the protective value of this memory, and we feel, therefore, that the word “expect” is within reasonability.

As for the Table format. The format was chosen by the journal editorial team, and we can see that for some uses it has advantages. However, we understand your concern, and now have added an Excel format variant of the Table to the supplement section so that readers can more easily view and interact with the data.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

We are aware of the time and effort reviewing takes, and are very thankful of your thoughtful contribution. It lifts our spirits that you and the other reviewers consider our article a nice contribution to the COVID-19 studies.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

17 Jul 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we did not want to make a general audience too enthusiastic, while we simultaneously wanted to stress that there is a chance that this MHC-I-mediated immunity might (possibly after boostering by vaccines) give real protection.

You are correct that immune memory by CD4⁺ cells is not only relevant to their control of B cell and CD8 T cell responses, and we have rewritten the sentence and paragraph on the “major arms of immune memory.” As you state, our paper focusses on CD8⁺ T cell memory indeed, because that is the memory response that can be predicted most reliably by sequence analysis alone. In the notification section we now shortly discuss two papers that appeared after we submitted our paper, and which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2 recognizing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell memory derived from previous common coronavirus infections.

As requested, we have now changed “software owners” to “software designers.”

As requested, we now have added more references of an enhanced immune reaction after a second (booster) immunization. However, we do not feel that for our type of paper it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms of memory T cells besides just mentioning their involvement.

As for the words “expected” versus “potential.” We feel that we used the word “expected” correctly. Table 1, where all the peptides are listed, carries neither of these two words and has a very neutral title. In the text, some peptides are referred to as “expected” to bind a particular MHC molecule, a term clearly relating to the indicated software and literature. Given the large number of potential MHC-I epitopes shared between the viruses, we “expect” previous common coronavirus infections to have induced some CD8+ T cell immune memory that recognizes SARS-CoV-2; this claim is not about the protective value of this memory, and we feel, therefore, that the word “expect” is within reasonability.

As for the Table format. The format was chosen by the journal editorial team, and we can see that for some uses it has advantages. However, we understand your concern, and now have added an Excel format variant of the Table to the supplement section so that readers can more easily view and interact with the data.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

We are aware of the time and effort reviewing takes, and are very thankful of your thoughtful contribution. It lifts our spirits that you and the other reviewers consider our article a nice contribution to the COVID-19 studies.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we did not want to make a general audience too enthusiastic, while we simultaneously wanted to stress that there is a chance that this MHC-I-mediated immunity might (possibly after boostering by vaccines) give real protection.

You are correct that immune memory by CD4⁺ cells is not only relevant to their control of B cell and CD8 T cell responses, and we have rewritten the sentence and paragraph on the “major arms of immune memory.” As you state, our paper focusses on CD8⁺ T cell memory indeed, because that is the memory response that can be predicted most reliably by sequence analysis alone. In the notification section we now shortly discuss two papers that appeared after we submitted our paper, and which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2 recognizing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell memory derived from previous common coronavirus infections.

As requested, we have now changed “software owners” to “software designers.”

As requested, we now have added more references of an enhanced immune reaction after a second (booster) immunization. However, we do not feel that for our type of paper it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms of memory T cells besides just mentioning their involvement.

As for the words “expected” versus “potential.” We feel that we used the word “expected” correctly. Table 1, where all the peptides are listed, carries neither of these two words and has a very neutral title. In the text, some peptides are referred to as “expected” to bind a particular MHC molecule, a term clearly relating to the indicated software and literature. Given the large number of potential MHC-I epitopes shared between the viruses, we “expect” previous common coronavirus infections to have induced some CD8+ T cell immune memory that recognizes SARS-CoV-2; this claim is not about the protective value of this memory, and we feel, therefore, that the word “expect” is within reasonability.

As for the Table format. The format was chosen by the journal editorial team, and we can see that for some uses it has advantages. However, we understand your concern, and now have added an Excel format variant of the Table to the supplement section so that readers can more easily view and interact with the data.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

We are aware of the time and effort reviewing takes, and are very thankful of your thoughtful contribution. It lifts our spirits that you and the other reviewers consider our article a nice contribution to the COVID-19 studies.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Jun 2020

Anna Gil, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

Liisa K. Selin, Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25889.r63655

This manuscript reports a very useful study that extends our knowledge of peptide-MHC recognition by CD8+ T cells during emerging virus infections such as SARS-CoV-2. Detailed in silico analysis showed the presence of potential epitopes shared between new types of betacoronavirus: SARS-CoV-2 and common human alphacoronaviruses: OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63. Due to the high prevalence of the common coronaviruses authors suggest that the large part of the human population has already some degree of specific memory T cell response before having been infected with the virus.

As authors already mentioned in their manuscript the similar study by Nguyen A. et al (JVI, 2020¹) demonstrated the HLA binding affinity of all possible 8- to 12-mers from SARS-CoV-2 proteome. This group found that HLA-B15:03 type has the greatest capacity to present highly conserved peptides which are shared among coronaviruses suggesting a cross-protective T cell immune response. In current manuscript using different prediction software authors identified and showed the sequence of epitopes which bind well to similar HLA type, HLA-B15:01. Interestingly, one of the epitopes (YLRKHFSM) can be bound by 4 different HLA types. The obvious strength of this study is the demonstration that certain epitopes, which are identical between SARS-CoV-2 and the common human coronaviruses are being predicted as high affinity binders in multiple HLA-A and B types.

Overall, the work reports important new details about SARS-CoV-2 epitopes theoretically being recognized by human CD8+ T cells. Undeniably, future experiments can prove if generated memory immune responses are specific to the proposed epitopes.

There are some suggestions:

The analysis of p/MHCI binding for HLA-C type (if available) would certainly complete the list of presented epitopes
The introduction part subtitled: ”The possibility of matching linear epitopes…” has missing information about previously published reports regarding T cell response in individuals infected with coronaviruses, either common or SARS-CoV.
In the discussion part readers may wonder why the authors did not discuss their findings with those already published (although they may not have been out at the time of submission) but should be included in the revision.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Nguyen A, David JK, Maden SK, Wood MA, et al.: Human Leukocyte Antigen Susceptibility Map for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.J Virol. 2020; 94 (13). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: T cel viral immunology

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

17 Jul 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree with the conclusions. Coming from experts like you, this is very reassuring.

We have now added a bit more information on the Nguyen et al. study in the Notification section. The advantage of the Nguyen et al. study was that they were more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our paper is a more concentrated focus on the memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory. They were first, which we acknowledged, although we wrote our paper independent of their article, and during the submission process of our article theirs was not an indexed publication yet. Presumably, this type of overlap will happen a lot with a topic as intensively studied as coronavirus, and we feel we took a reasonable approach for dealing with their study. From your reviews, we understand that you and the other reviewer, Dr. Sant, find this within acceptability.

Thank you for referring to the interesting YLRKHFSMMIL stretch which is identical between HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2, as indeed it harbors predicted binding epitopes for several MHC-I supertypes. However, we prefer not to discuss this in text form, because there are many uncertainties (e.g., about recent HCoV-NL63 distributions in the world population) and a textual discussion may not add clarity to the table presentation.

Based on your advice, we now have added HLA-C predictions to Table 1.

Likewise, we now have added a more extensive summary of previous reports on T cell memory after coronavirus infections.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

Again, we like to thank you for the reviewing, as we are aware of the time and effort that it takes. We are very happy that our article is appreciated, since it deals with such an important topic.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree with the conclusions. Coming from experts like you, this is very reassuring.

We have now added a bit more information on the Nguyen et al. study in the Notification section. The advantage of the Nguyen et al. study was that they were more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our paper is a more concentrated focus on the memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory. They were first, which we acknowledged, although we wrote our paper independent of their article, and during the submission process of our article theirs was not an indexed publication yet. Presumably, this type of overlap will happen a lot with a topic as intensively studied as coronavirus, and we feel we took a reasonable approach for dealing with their study. From your reviews, we understand that you and the other reviewer, Dr. Sant, find this within acceptability.

Thank you for referring to the interesting YLRKHFSMMIL stretch which is identical between HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2, as indeed it harbors predicted binding epitopes for several MHC-I supertypes. However, we prefer not to discuss this in text form, because there are many uncertainties (e.g., about recent HCoV-NL63 distributions in the world population) and a textual discussion may not add clarity to the table presentation.

Based on your advice, we now have added HLA-C predictions to Table 1.

Likewise, we now have added a more extensive summary of previous reports on T cell memory after coronavirus infections.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

Again, we like to thank you for the reviewing, as we are aware of the time and effort that it takes. We are very happy that our article is appreciated, since it deals with such an important topic.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

17 Jul 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree with the conclusions. Coming from experts like you, this is very reassuring.

We have now added a bit more information on the Nguyen et al. study in the Notification section. The advantage of the Nguyen et al. study was that they were more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our paper is a more concentrated focus on the memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory. They were first, which we acknowledged, although we wrote our paper independent of their article, and during the submission process of our article theirs was not an indexed publication yet. Presumably, this type of overlap will happen a lot with a topic as intensively studied as coronavirus, and we feel we took a reasonable approach for dealing with their study. From your reviews, we understand that you and the other reviewer, Dr. Sant, find this within acceptability.

Thank you for referring to the interesting YLRKHFSMMIL stretch which is identical between HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2, as indeed it harbors predicted binding epitopes for several MHC-I supertypes. However, we prefer not to discuss this in text form, because there are many uncertainties (e.g., about recent HCoV-NL63 distributions in the world population) and a textual discussion may not add clarity to the table presentation.

Based on your advice, we now have added HLA-C predictions to Table 1.

Likewise, we now have added a more extensive summary of previous reports on T cell memory after coronavirus infections.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

Again, we like to thank you for the reviewing, as we are aware of the time and effort that it takes. We are very happy that our article is appreciated, since it deals with such an important topic.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree with the conclusions. Coming from experts like you, this is very reassuring.

We have now added a bit more information on the Nguyen et al. study in the Notification section. The advantage of the Nguyen et al. study was that they were more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our paper is a more concentrated focus on the memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory. They were first, which we acknowledged, although we wrote our paper independent of their article, and during the submission process of our article theirs was not an indexed publication yet. Presumably, this type of overlap will happen a lot with a topic as intensively studied as coronavirus, and we feel we took a reasonable approach for dealing with their study. From your reviews, we understand that you and the other reviewer, Dr. Sant, find this within acceptability.

Thank you for referring to the interesting YLRKHFSMMIL stretch which is identical between HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2, as indeed it harbors predicted binding epitopes for several MHC-I supertypes. However, we prefer not to discuss this in text form, because there are many uncertainties (e.g., about recent HCoV-NL63 distributions in the world population) and a textual discussion may not add clarity to the table presentation.

Based on your advice, we now have added HLA-C predictions to Table 1.

Likewise, we now have added a more extensive summary of previous reports on T cell memory after coronavirus infections.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

Again, we like to thank you for the reviewing, as we are aware of the time and effort that it takes. We are very happy that our article is appreciated, since it deals with such an important topic.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (3)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Jul 2020

Revised

Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Apr 2020

Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Author Response 02 Jun 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

02 Jun 2020

Author Response

In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which ... Continue reading In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which was after the journal edited our manuscript.

Also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto,

Hans Dijkstra
In this comment I would just like to state that we submitted this article to F1000Research on April 15 (Japanese time). F1000Research only lists the publication date (April 23) which was after the journal edited our manuscript.

Also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto,

Hans Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 28 Apr 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

28 Apr 2020

Author Response

Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
... Continue reading Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
In the F1000Research publication system, two or three reviewers will comment on-line, after which we as authors (probably) have to modify the manuscript following their comments. If those comments are in line with yours, we can implement some of the information that you provided.
Having said that, we also like to keep the message simple and concentrate on the MHC-I restricted immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 that can be expected to already exist in many people as induced by common coronaviruses. Especially for the elderly this is interesting in regard to vaccination.

Sincerely,

Hans Dijkstra
Dear Dr. Bercovier,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links. Especially the data on the protective effects against common coronaviruses by previous infections by homologous virus are relevant.
In the F1000Research publication system, two or three reviewers will comment on-line, after which we as authors (probably) have to modify the manuscript following their comments. If those comments are in line with yours, we can implement some of the information that you provided.
Having said that, we also like to keep the message simple and concentrate on the MHC-I restricted immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 that can be expected to already exist in many people as induced by common coronaviruses. Especially for the elderly this is interesting in regard to vaccination.

Sincerely,

Hans Dijkstra
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Reader Comment 27 Apr 2020

Herve Bercovier, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Medicine Ein Kerem, Israel

27 Apr 2020

Reader Comment

Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ... Continue reading Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ( I do not need any additional paper for my career) if it was added to your interesting article.
1) data on serological cross reaction among the Coronavirus that last for a while. (For à review https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771v1.full.pdf ; and I have more papers including challenged studies in volunteer with old corona viruses, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/219/12/1913/5307035; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271881/pdf/epidinfect00023-0213.pdf) 2)CD4 data in a BioRxiv paper in healthy blood donors in Germany that cross with SARS-COV-2 peptides (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20061440v1.full.pdf ) and cross CD4 peptides among new coronavirses (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27287409/?from_term=Coronavirus+cross+protection&from_pos=6) 3) The hypothesis that these immune cross reactions ( CD8, CD4, antibodies) prevent colonization of SARS-COV-2 in children aged 0-9 years who are permanently infected in kinder garden and primary school with these old common cold corona viruses. These children do not seem, as a result, able to contaminate neither siblings nor parents. The remaining immune memory would also explain why children aged 10-19 years who can be infected, do not usually develop any invasive serious disease caused by SARS-COV-2 but are able to infect other children and adults. Likewise, it would explain why the COVID19 clinical presentation is worsening with age.

I hope you will consider my remarks and integrate these data into your paper and it could be then a very comprehensive article on the subject of potential cross protection between the different beta Coronavirus.

sincerely yours,

H. Bercovier.
Dear Colleagues,
I am in the middle of writing a similar paper and I would like you to take in consideration the following data that will make my paper unnecessary ( I do not need any additional paper for my career) if it was added to your interesting article.
1) data on serological cross reaction among the Coronavirus that last for a while. (For à review https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771v1.full.pdf ; and I have more papers including challenged studies in volunteer with old corona viruses, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/219/12/1913/5307035; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271881/pdf/epidinfect00023-0213.pdf) 2)CD4 data in a BioRxiv paper in healthy blood donors in Germany that cross with SARS-COV-2 peptides (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20061440v1.full.pdf ) and cross CD4 peptides among new coronavirses (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27287409/?from_term=Coronavirus+cross+protection&from_pos=6) 3) The hypothesis that these immune cross reactions ( CD8, CD4, antibodies) prevent colonization of SARS-COV-2 in children aged 0-9 years who are permanently infected in kinder garden and primary school with these old common cold corona viruses. These children do not seem, as a result, able to contaminate neither siblings nor parents. The remaining immune memory would also explain why children aged 10-19 years who can be infected, do not usually develop any invasive serious disease caused by SARS-COV-2 but are able to infect other children and adults. Likewise, it would explain why the COVID19 clinical presentation is worsening with age.

I hope you will consider my remarks and integrate these data into your paper and it could be then a very comprehensive article on the subject of potential cross protection between the different beta Coronavirus.

sincerely yours,

H. Bercovier.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 17 Jul 20
Version 1 23 Apr 20	read	read

Anna Gil, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA

Liisa K. Selin, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
Andrea J. Sant, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, USA; David H. Smith Center for Vaccine Biology and Immunology, Rochester, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(3)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

28 Views

22 Jun 2020 | for Version 1

28 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Immunology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

Dear Dr. Sant,

Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly appreciate your comment that our article is timely and well balanced. Especially the latter is important, since we did not want to make a general audience too enthusiastic, while we simultaneously wanted to stress that there is a chance that this MHC-I-mediated immunity might (possibly after boostering by vaccines) give real protection.

You are correct that immune memory by CD4⁺ cells is not only relevant to their control of B cell and CD8 T cell responses, and we have rewritten the sentence and paragraph on the “major arms of immune memory.” As you state, our paper focusses on CD8⁺ T cell memory indeed, because that is the memory response that can be predicted most reliably by sequence analysis alone. In the notification section we now shortly discuss two papers that appeared after we submitted our paper, and which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2 recognizing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell memory derived from previous common coronavirus infections.

As requested, we have now changed “software owners” to “software designers.”

As requested, we now have added more references of an enhanced immune reaction after a second (booster) immunization. However, we do not feel that for our type of paper it is necessary to discuss the mechanisms of memory T cells besides just mentioning their involvement.

As for the words “expected” versus “potential.” We feel that we used the word “expected” correctly. Table 1, where all the peptides are listed, carries neither of these two words and has a very neutral title. In the text, some peptides are referred to as “expected” to bind a particular MHC molecule, a term clearly relating to the indicated software and literature. Given the large number of potential MHC-I epitopes shared between the viruses, we “expect” previous common coronavirus infections to have induced some CD8+ T cell immune memory that recognizes SARS-CoV-2; this claim is not about the protective value of this memory, and we feel, therefore, that the word “expect” is within reasonability.

As for the Table format. The format was chosen by the journal editorial team, and we can see that for some uses it has advantages. However, we understand your concern, and now have added an Excel format variant of the Table to the supplement section so that readers can more easily view and interact with the data.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

We are aware of the time and effort reviewing takes, and are very thankful of your thoughtful contribution. It lifts our spirits that you and the other reviewers consider our article a nice contribution to the COVID-19 studies.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

36 Views

22 Jun 2020 | for Version 1

Anna Gil, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

Liisa K. Selin, Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

36 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

The analysis of p/MHCI binding for HLA-C type (if available) would certainly complete the list of presented epitopes
The introduction part subtitled: ”The possibility of matching linear epitopes…” has missing information about previously published reports regarding T cell response in individuals infected with coronaviruses, either common or SARS-CoV.
In the discussion part readers may wonder why the authors did not discuss their findings with those already published (although they may not have been out at the time of submission) but should be included in the revision.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

T cel viral immunology

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Jul 2020

Johannes M. Dijkstra, Institute for Comprehensive Medical Science, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan

Dear Dr. Gil and Dr. Selin,

Thank you for your kindness to review our article. We are glad that you find our study very useful, and that you agree with the conclusions. Coming from experts like you, this is very reassuring.

We have now added a bit more information on the Nguyen et al. study in the Notification section. The advantage of the Nguyen et al. study was that they were more complete on SARS-CoV-2 MHC epitope predictions and made an association with MHC allele distributions. The advantage of our paper is a more concentrated focus on the memory expected from previous coronavirus infections, and the vaccination potential deriving from that memory. They were first, which we acknowledged, although we wrote our paper independent of their article, and during the submission process of our article theirs was not an indexed publication yet. Presumably, this type of overlap will happen a lot with a topic as intensively studied as coronavirus, and we feel we took a reasonable approach for dealing with their study. From your reviews, we understand that you and the other reviewer, Dr. Sant, find this within acceptability.

Thank you for referring to the interesting YLRKHFSMMIL stretch which is identical between HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2, as indeed it harbors predicted binding epitopes for several MHC-I supertypes. However, we prefer not to discuss this in text form, because there are many uncertainties (e.g., about recent HCoV-NL63 distributions in the world population) and a textual discussion may not add clarity to the table presentation.

Based on your advice, we now have added HLA-C predictions to Table 1.

Likewise, we now have added a more extensive summary of previous reports on T cell memory after coronavirus infections.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we corrected a mistake and now informed the readers that there is a single 8 aa match between compared S proteins.

Apart from addressing the reviewer’s comments, we now also added the information that the study by Callow et al. (1990) on HCoV-229E, concluded imperfect immune memory protection even by live virus infection one year before challenge.

Again, we like to thank you for the reviewing, as we are aware of the time and effort that it takes. We are very happy that our article is appreciated, since it deals with such an important topic.

Sincerely,
also on behalf of Keiichiro Hashimoto

Hans (J.M.) Dijkstra

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Al Kahlout RA, Nasrallah GK, Farag EA, et al.: Comparative Serological Study for the Prevalence of Anti-MERS Coronavirus Antibodies in High- and Low-Risk Groups in Qatar. J Immunol Res. 2019; 2019: 1386740. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] Amanat F, Nguyen T, Chromikova V, et al.: A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. medRxiv. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[3] Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, et al.: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020; 26(4): 450–452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] Arnold PY, La Gruta NL, Miller T, et al.: The majority of immunogenic epitopes generate CD4⁺ T cells that are dependent on MHC class II-bound peptide-flanking residues. J Immunol. 2002; 169(2): 739–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Bisht H, Roberts A, Vogel L, et al.: Neutralizing antibody and protective immunity to SARS coronavirus infection of mice induced by a soluble recombinant polypeptide containing an N-terminal segment of the spike glycoprotein. Virology. 2005; 334(2): 160–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] Bjorkman PJ, Saper MA, Samraoui B, et al.: Structure of the human class I histocompatibility antigen, HLA-A2. Nature. 1987; 329(6139): 506–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] Bradburne AF, Somerset BA: Coronative antibody tires in sera of healthy adults and experimentally infected volunteers. J Hyg (Lond). 1972; 70(2): 235–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] Braun J, Loyal L, Frentsch M, et al.: Presence of SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors. MedRxiv. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[9] Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Gorga JC, et al.: Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLA-DR1. Nature. 1993; 364(6432): 33–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Calis JJ, Maybeno M, Greenbaum JA, et al.: Properties of MHC class I presented peptides that enhance immunogenicity. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013; 9(10): e1003266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] Callow KA, Parry HF, Sergeant M, et al.: The time course of the immune response to experimental coronavirus infection of man. Epidemiol Infect. 1990; 105(2): 435–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Ceraolo C, Giorgi FM: Genomic variance of the 2019-nCoV coronavirus. J Med Virol. 2020; 92(5): 522–528. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Channappanavar R, Fett C, Zhao J, et al.: Virus-specific memory CD8 T cells provide substantial protection from lethal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J Virol. 2014; 88(19): 11034–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] Cohen J: Vaccine designers take first shots at COVID-19. Science. 2020; 368(6486): 14–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Dhanda SK, Mahajan S, Paul S, et al.: IEDB-AR: immune epitope database-analysis resource in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47(W1): W502–W506. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] Dijkman R, Jebbink MF, Gaunt E, et al.: The dominance of human coronavirus OC43 and NL63 infections in infants. J Clin Virol. 2012; 53(2): 135–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] Dijkstra H: Extended data. Sequence alignments of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab and N proteins with their counterparts in the common human coronaviruses. Harvard Dataverse. V1. 2020a. http://www.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CNPUPA

[18] Dijkstra H: Excel format version of Table 1. Harvard Dataverse. V1. 2020b. http://www.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LOBKLV

[19] Doytchinova IA, Guan P, Flower DR: Identifiying human MHC supertypes using bioinformatic methods. J Immunol. 2004; 172(7): 4314–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] Du L, Zhao G, Lin Y, et al.: Intranasal vaccination of recombinant adeno-associated virus encoding receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) spike protein induces strong mucosal immune responses and provides long-term protection against SARS-CoV infection. J Immunol. 2008; 180(2): 948–56. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] Gaunt ER, Hardie A, Claas EC, et al.: Epidemiology and clinical presentations of the four human coronaviruses 229E, HKU1, NL63, and OC43 detected over 3 years using a novel multiplex real-time PCR method. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48(8): 2940–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] Goding JW: Production of Monoclonal Antibodies. Monoclonal Antibodies (Third Edition) Ed.: Goding JW. Academic Press Limited, London, 1996; 141–191. Reference Source

[23] Grifoni A, Weiskopf D, Ramirez SI, et al.: Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell. 2020; 181(7): 1489–1501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] Kahn JS, McIntosh K: History and recent advances in coronavirus discovery. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005; 24(11 suppl): S223–7, discussion S226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] Kaml M, Weiskirchner I, Keller M, et al.: Booster vaccination in the elderly: their success depends on the vaccine type applied earlier in life as well as on pre-vaccination antibody titers. Vaccine. 2006; 24(47–48): 6808–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] Killerby ME, Biggs HM, Haynes A, et al.: Human coronavirus circulation in the United States 2014-2017. J Clin Virol. 2018; 101: 52–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] Kohyama S, Ohno S, Suda T, et al.: Efficient induction of cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus by immunization with surface-linked liposomal peptides derived from a non-structural polyprotein 1a. Antiviral Res. 2009; 84(2): 168–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] Kupferschmidt K, Cohen J: Race to find COVID-19 treatments accelerates. Science. 2020; 367(6485): 1412–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] Li CK, Wu H, Yan H, et al.: T cell responses to whole SARS coronavirus in humans. J Immunol. 2008; 181(8): 5490–500. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] Liao M, Liu Y, Yuan J, et al.: Single-cell landscape of bronchoalveolar immune cells in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020; 26(6): 842–844. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] Liu WJ, Zhao M, Liu K, et al.: T-cell immunity of SARS-CoV: Implications for vaccine development against MERS-CoV. Antiviral Res. 2017; 137: 82–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] Lund O, Nielsen M, Kesmir C, et al.: Definition of supertypes for HLA molecules using clustering of specificity matrices. Immunogenetics. 2004; 55(12): 797–810. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] Lundegaard C, Lamberth K, Harndahl M, et al.: NetMHC-3.0: accurate web accessible predictions of human, mouse and monkey MHC class I affinities for peptides of length 8-11. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008; 36(Web Server issue): W509–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] Mäkelä MJ, Puhakka T, Ruuskanen O, et al.: Viruses and bacteria in the etiology of the common cold. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36(2): 539–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] Matoba Y, Abiko C, Ikeda T, et al.: Detection of the human coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63, and OC43 between 2010 and 2013 in Yamagata, Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2015; 68(2): 138–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] Neefjes J, Jongsma ML, Paul P, et al.: Towards a systems understanding of MHC class I and MHC class II antigen presentation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011; 11(12): 823–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] Nguyen A, David JK, Maden SK, et al.: Human Leukocyte Antigen Susceptibility Map for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. J Virol. 2020; 94(13): e00510–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] Nielsen M, Lundegaard C, Lund O, et al.: The role of the proteasome in generating cytotoxic T-cell epitopes: insights obtained from improved predictions of proteasomal cleavage. Immunogenetics. 2005; 57(1–2): 33–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] Paul WE: The immune system. In Fundamental Immunology (seventh edition). Ed.: Paul WE. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2013; 1–21. Reference Source

[40] Plotkin SL, Plotkin SA: A Short History of Vaccination. In Plotkin's Vaccines (7th Edition). Eds.: Plotkin SA, Orenstein W, Offit PA, Edwards KM. Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2018; 1–15. Publisher Full Text

[41] Polakos NK, Drane D, Cox J, et al.: Characterization of hepatitis C virus core-specific immune responses primed in rhesus macaques by a nonclassical ISCOM vaccine. J Immunol. 2001; 166(5): 3589–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] Qiu T, Mao T, Wang Y, et al.: Identification of potential cross-protective epitope between a new type of coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome virus. J Genet Genomics. 2020; 47(2): 115–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] Rammensee HG, Friede T, Stevanoviíc S: MHC ligands and peptide motifs: first listing. Immunogenetics. 1995; 41(4): 178–228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] Reber AJ, Chirkova T, Kim JH, et al.: Immunosenescence and Challenges of Vaccination against Influenza in the Aging Population. Aging Dis. 2012; 3(1): 68–90. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[45] Robinson J, Barker DJ, Georgiou X, et al.: IPD-IMGT/HLA Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48(D1): D948–D955. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] Schellens IM, Hoof I, Meiring HD, et al.: Comprehensive Analysis of the Naturally Processed Peptide Repertoire: Differences between HLA-A and B in the Immunopeptidome. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9): e0136417. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] Schulze K, Staib C, Schätzl HM, et al.: A prime-boost vaccination protocol optimizes immune responses against the nucleocapsid protein of the SARS coronavirus. Vaccine. 2008; 26(51): 6678–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] Slingluff CL Jr: The present and future of peptide vaccines for cancer: single or multiple, long or short, alone or in combination? Cancer J. 2011; 17(5): 343–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] Stern LJ, Wiley DC: Antigenic peptide binding by class I and class II histocompatibility proteins. Structure. 1994; 2(4): 245–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] Tang F, Quan Y, Xin ZT, et al.: Lack of peripheral memory B cell responses in recovered patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome: a six-year follow-up study. J Immunol. 2011; 186(12): 7264–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] Thiel V, Herold J, Schelle B, et al.: Infectious RNA transcribed in vitro from a cDNA copy of the human coronavirus genome cloned in vaccinia virus. J Gen Virol. 2001; 82(Pt 6): 1273–1281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] van der Hoek L, Pyrc K, Jebbink MF, et al.: Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nat Med. 2004; 10(4): 368–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[53] van Montfoort N, van der Aa E, Woltman AM: Understanding MHC class I presentation of viral antigens by human dendritic cells as a basis for rational design of therapeutic vaccines. Front Immunol. 2014; 5: 182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[54] Vijgen L, Keyaerts E, Moës E, et al.: Complete genomic sequence of human coronavirus OC43: molecular clock analysis suggests a relatively recent zoonotic coronavirus transmission event. J Virol. 2005; 79(3): 1595–604. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[55] Wagner A, Weinberger B: Vaccines to Prevent Infectious Diseases in the Older Population: Immunological Challenges and Future Perspectives. Front Immunol. 2020; 11: 717. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[56] Wasmoen TL, Kadakia NP, Unfer RC, et al.: Protection of cats from infectious peritonitis by vaccination with a recombinant raccoon poxvirus expressing the nucleocapsid gene of feline infectious peritonitis virus. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1995; 380: 221–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al.: Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol. 2004; 78(22): 12672–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[58] Weiss SR, Navas-Martin S: Coronavirus pathogenesis and the emerging pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005; 69(4): 635–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[59] Woo PC, Lau SK, Chu CM, et al.: Characterization and complete genome sequence of a novel coronavirus, coronavirus HKU1, from patients with pneumonia. J Virol. 2005; 79(2): 884–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, et al.: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature. 2020; 579(7798): 265–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[61] Yadav M, Jhunjhunwala S, Phung QT, et al.: Predicting immunogenic tumour mutations by combining mass spectrometry and exome sequencing. Nature. 2014; 515(7528): 572–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] Zhao P, Cao J, Zhao LJ, et al.: Immune responses against SARS-coronavirus nucleocapsid protein induced by DNA vaccine. Virology. 2005; 331(1): 128–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[63] Zhao J, Zhao J, Perlman S: T cell responses are required for protection from clinical disease and for virus clearance in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-infected mice. J Virol. 2010; 84(18): 9318–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] Zhao J, Zhao J, Mangalam AK, et al.: Airway Memory CD4⁺ T Cells Mediate Protective Immunity against Emerging Respiratory Coronaviruses. Immunity. 2016; 44(6): 1379–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] Zhou W, Wang W, Wang H, et al.: First infection by all four non-severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronaviruses takes place during childhood. BMC Infect Dis. 2013; 13: 433. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[66] Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, et al.: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020; 579(7798): 270–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Expected immune recognition of COVID-19 virus by memory from earlier infections with common coronaviruses in a large part of the world population

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses

Prevalence and associated disease of the common human coronaviruses 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1

The possibility of matching linear epitopes between SARS-CoV-2 and the common human coronaviruses that may stimulate the immune system through MHC class I presentation

Methods

Results and discussion

Table 1. Stretches of 9 consecutive amino acids that are identical between SARS-CoV-2 and at least one of the common human coronaviruses.

Software predictions of MHC-I-binding epitopes

Vaccination potential

Notifications

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (3)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (3)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated