SARS-CoV-2 spike does not interact with the T cell receptor or directly activate T cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 infection can induce multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which resembles superantigen-induced toxic shock syndrome. Recent work has suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein could act as a superantigen by binding T cell receptors (TCRs) and inducing broad antigen-independent T cell responses. Structure-based computational modeling identified potential TCR-binding sites near the S receptor-binding domain, in addition to a site with homology to known neurotoxins. We experimentally examined the mechanism underpinning this theory—the direct interaction between the TCR and S protein. Surface plasmon resonance of recombinantly expressed S protein and TCR revealed no detectable binding. Orthogonally, we pseudotyped lentiviruses with SARS-CoV-2 S in both wild-type and prefusion-stabilized forms, demonstrated their functionality in a cell line assay, and observed no transduction, activation, or stimulation of proliferation of CD8 + T cells. We conclude that it is unlikely that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein engages nonspecifically with TCRs or has superantigenic character.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".