Justin T. Nassif
Research Subjects
Justin T. Nassif has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Georgia Stylianou
Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
2 shared publications - Greg A. Kirchenbaum
Research and Development, Cellular Technology Ltd. (CTL), Shaker Heights, OH 44122, USA
2 shared publications - Paul V. Lehmann
Research and Development, Cellular Technology Ltd. (CTL), Shaker Heights, OH 44122, USA
2 shared publications - Sharon Cookson
Translational & Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
2 shared publications - Stephen Todryk
Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
A Comparison of Flow Cytometry-based versus ImmunoSpot- or Supernatant-based Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific Memory B Cells in Peripheral Blood
Background: Memory B cells (Bmem) facilitate the generation of renewed and rapid antigen-specific antibody responses long after the initial antigen exposure, at a time when circulating serum antibodies may have declined. As the generation and/or recruitment of Bmem is at the core of most vaccination strategies, the assessment of antigen-specific Bmem is highly informative for forecasting and profiling the elicited B cell immune response. Methods: The two prevalent techniques used to detect antigen-specific Bmem cells at single-cell resolution are probe-based flow cytometry and B cell ImmunoSpot, while the measurement of B cell-derived antibodies in culture supernatants of stimulated B cells offers a semi-quantitative alternative. To the best of our knowledge, a direct side-by-side comparison of these assay systems has not yet been reported using the same starting PBMC material in a blinded fashion to test all three assays simultaneously. Results: These three assay systems were run in parallel to detect SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-1 strain Spike-specific IgG+ Bmem in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples obtained from well-defined cohorts comprising pre-COVID-19 era “naïve” individuals (negative controls), individuals shortly after recovery from a PCR-verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive controls), and a cohort of donor PBMCs isolated in 2024 (the experimental group). Each assay was able to discern Spike-exposed individuals from naïve , with ImmunoSpot suggesting superior sensitivity and specificity. ImmunoSpot and flow cytometry results were closely correlated. Conclusions: The study demonstrates that all three assays are suited for the detection of specific Bmem in antigen-primed individuals when such Bmem occur in the mid- to high-frequency range, and that they broadly concur. Strengths and weaknesses of the three test systems are discussed.
Open AccessA Comparison of Flow Cytometry-based versus ImmunoSpot- or Supernatant-based Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific Memory B Cells in Peripheral Blood
Background: Memory B cells (Bmem) facilitate the generation of renewed and rapid antigen-specific antibody responses long after the initial antigen exposure, at a time when circulating serum antibodies may have declined. As the generation and/or recruitment of Bmem is at the core of most vaccination strategies, the assessment of antigen-specific Bmem is highly informative for forecasting and profiling the elicited B cell immune response. Methods: The two prevalent techniques used to detect antigen-specific Bmem cells at single-cell resolution are probe-based flow cytometry and B cell ImmunoSpot, while the measurement of B cell-derived antibodies in culture supernatants of stimulated B cells offers a semi-quantitative alternative. To the best of our knowledge, a direct side-by-side comparison of these assay systems has not yet been reported using the same starting PBMC material in a blinded fashion to test all three assays simultaneously. Results: These three assay systems were run in parallel to detect SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-1 strain Spike-specific IgG+ Bmem in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples obtained from well-defined cohorts comprising pre-COVID-19 era “naïve” individuals (negative controls), individuals shortly after recovery from a PCR-verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive controls), and a cohort of donor PBMCs isolated in 2024 (the experimental group). Each assay was able to discern Spike-exposed individuals from naïve , with ImmunoSpot suggesting superior sensitivity and specificity. ImmunoSpot and flow cytometry results were closely correlated. Conclusions: The study demonstrates that all three assays are suited for the detection of specific Bmem in antigen-primed individuals when such Bmem occur in the mid- to high-frequency range, and that they broadly concur. Strengths and weaknesses of the three test systems are discussed.
- Open Access
- 20 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
A comparison of Flow Cytometry- versus ImmunoSpot- or Supernatant-Based Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Memory B Cells in Peripheral Blood
Memory B cells (Bmem) facilitate the generation of renewed and rapid antigen-specific antibody responses long after the initial antigen exposure, at a time when circulating serum antibodies may have declined. As the generation and/or recruitment of Bmem is at the core of most vaccination strategies, the assessment of antigen-specific Bmem is highly informative for forecasting and profiling the elicited B cell immune response. The two prevalent techniques used to detect antigen-specific Bmem cells at single cell resolution are probe-based flow cytometry and B cell ImmunoSpot, while the measurement of B cell-derived antibodies in culture supernatants of stimulated B cells offers a semi-quantitative alternative. To the best of our knowledge, a direct side-by-side comparison of these test systems has not yet been reported. Hence, in a blinded fashion, we compared these three test systems in parallel, aiming to detect SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein- (S-antigen) specific IgG+ Bmem in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) samples obtained from well defined cohorts comprising: pre-COVID era “naïve” individuals (negative controls), individuals shortly after recovery from a PCR-verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive controls), and a cohort of donor PBMC isolated in 2024 (the experimental group). Our results demonstrate that all three assays are suited for the detection of specific Bmem in antigen-primed individuals when such Bmem occur in the mid- to high frequency range; strengths and weaknesses of the three test systems are discussed.
- 20 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Preprints.org
Open AccessA comparison of Flow Cytometry- versus ImmunoSpot- or Supernatant-Based Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Memory B Cells in Peripheral Blood
Memory B cells (Bmem) facilitate the generation of renewed and rapid antigen-specific antibody responses long after the initial antigen exposure, at a time when circulating serum antibodies may have declined. As the generation and/or recruitment of Bmem is at the core of most vaccination strategies, the assessment of antigen-specific Bmem is highly informative for forecasting and profiling the elicited B cell immune response. The two prevalent techniques used to detect antigen-specific Bmem cells at single cell resolution are probe-based flow cytometry and B cell ImmunoSpot, while the measurement of B cell-derived antibodies in culture supernatants of stimulated B cells offers a semi-quantitative alternative. To the best of our knowledge, a direct side-by-side comparison of these test systems has not yet been reported. Hence, in a blinded fashion, we compared these three test systems in parallel, aiming to detect SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein- (S-antigen) specific IgG+ Bmem in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) samples obtained from well defined cohorts comprising: pre-COVID era “naïve” individuals (negative controls), individuals shortly after recovery from a PCR-verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive controls), and a cohort of donor PBMC isolated in 2024 (the experimental group). Our results demonstrate that all three assays are suited for the detection of specific Bmem in antigen-primed individuals when such Bmem occur in the mid- to high frequency range; strengths and weaknesses of the three test systems are discussed.