Contrasting Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination vs. Infection on Antibody and TCR Repertoires (preprint)

Antibodies and helper T cells play important roles in SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We sequenced B- and T-cell receptor repertoires (BCR/TCR) from the blood of 251 infectees, vaccinees, and controls to investigate whether features of these repertoires could predict subjects' SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titer (NAbs), as measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We sequenced recombined immunoglobulin heavy-chain (IGH), TCRbeta (TRB), and TCRdelta (TRD) genes in parallel from all subjects, including select B- and T-cell subsets in most cases, with a focus on their hypervariable CDR3 regions, and correlated this AIRRseq data with demographics and clinical findings from subjects' electronic health records. We found that age affected NAb levels in vaccinees but not infectees. Intriguingly, we found that vaccination, but not infection, has a substantial effect on non-productively recombined IGHs, suggesting a vaccine effect that precedes clonal selection. We found that repertoires' binding capacity to known SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ TRBs performs as well as the best hand-tuned fuzzy matching at predicting a protective level of NAbs, while also being more robust to repertoire sample size and not requiring hand-tuning. The overall conclusion from this large, unbiased, clinically well annotated dataset is that B- and T-cell adaptive responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination are surprising, subtle, and diffuse. We discuss methodological and statistical challenges faced in attempting to define and quantify such strong-but-diffuse repertoire signatures and present tools and strategies for addressing these challenges.

Saliva Is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Abstract Background. The continued need for molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 and promise of self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting, without special restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or toothbrushing. Methods. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity RT-PCR platforms: the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m, both with limits of detection (LoD) of 100 copies of viral RNA/mL. Results. Concordance between saliva and NP was excellent overall (Cohen's {kappa}=0.93) for initial as well as followup testing on both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative and for untreated saliva ({kappa}=0.88-0.95). Viral loads were on average 16x higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (~8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/mL from NP swabs) would be missed by saliva testing relative to NP testing, for sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. Conclusions. The advantages of self-collection without additional restrictions will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing.

Nasal-Swab Testing Misses Patients with Low SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads (preprint)

The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted pursuit of sample-collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace sampling of the nasopharynx (NP). Among these alternatives is collection of nasal-swab samples, which can be performed by the patient, avoiding the need for healthcare personnel and personal protective equipment. Previous studies have reached opposing conclusions regarding whether nasal sampling is concordant or discordant with NP. To resolve this disagreement, we compared nasal and NP specimens collected by healthcare workers in a cohort consisting of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 and outpatients known to be SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive undergoing follow-up. We investigated three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, for each of two different nasal-swab collection protocols on a total of 308 study participants, and compared categorical results and Ct values to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime EUA (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/mL transport medium). We found high concordance (Cohen's kappa >0.8) only for patients with viral loads above 1,000 copies/mL. Those with viral loads below 1,000 copies/mL, the majority in our cohort, exhibited low concordance (Cohen's kappa = 0.49); most of these would have been missed by nasal testing alone. Previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from use of assays with higher LoD ([≥]1,000 copies/mL). These findings counsel caution in use of nasal testing in healthcare settings and contact-tracing efforts, as opposed to screening of asymptomatic, low-prevalence, low-risk populations. Nasal testing is an adjunct, not a replacement, for NP.

SARS-CoV2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters (preprint)

Resolving the COVID-19 pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected and which are not. The current gold standard is to perform RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of ~100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss more infected patients, resulting in more false negatives. However, the false-negative rate for a given LoD remains unknown. Here we address this question using over 27,500 test results for patients from across our healthcare network tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 EUA. These results suggest that each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to increase the false negative rate by 13%, missing an additional one in eight infected patients. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients, with false negative rates as high as 70%. These results suggest that choice of assay has meaningful clinical and epidemiological consequences. The limit of detection matters.