Skip to content
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed South African women

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2022
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) collection.

Abstract

Background: A potential explanation for the fact that the high rate of infection of SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa did not translate into high rates of severe illness and death may be the presence of cross-reactive immunity induced by common cold coronaviruses (CCoV).
Methods: We used SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and whole virus antigen to stimulate peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected pre-2020 from South African women. Dual-colour FluoroSpot assay was used to measure interferon gamma (IFNγ) and interleukin 2 (IL2) production.
Results: Among the 97 study participants, IFNγ responses were observed in 29.9% of the women and IL2 among 39.2%. Overall, 51.6% of women demonstrated response to at least one stimulant.
Conclusion: We demonstrate the presence of cross-reactive immunity to SARS-CoV-2, which might have been induced by past exposure to CCoV.

Keywords

cell mediated immunity, SARS-CoV-2, interferon gamma, interleukin 2

Revised Amendments from Version 1

In the Analysis section of the Methods we have the statistical tests used are stated. Typo on the peptide pools' concentrations has been corrected. d
Discussion has been expanded and 5 references have been added.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Helen Wagstaffe
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Marcin Ratajewski

Introduction

South Africa experienced a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (approximately 40% based on convenience sampling sero-survey in one area) during the course of the first COVID-19 wave compared with the global North (highest estimates of 11% in Italy and 13% in the USA)13. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 mortality rate in South Africa (284 per 1,000,000) was lower than that observed in high-income countries such as in Spain, Italy, USA and United Kingdom (594-684 per 1,000,000)4. Possible reasons for the lower risk of progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection to severe COVID-19 in low–and-middle income settings compared to high-income settings include differences in age-group demographics, prevalence of underlying co-morbidities, genetic factors and factors that could influence the virus inoculum load. Other possible reasons include underpinning cross-reactive cellular immunity that mitigated progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection to COVID-19 severe disease and death. Previous studies demonstrated T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 in uninfected individuals and postulated that immunity induced by human endemic common cold coronaviruses (CCoV) may confer cross-reactive immune responses5. Underlying anamnestic cell mediated immunity, whilst not necessarily able to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, might attenuate the clinical course of illness and prevent progression to severe COVID-196. Due to high population density and overcrowding, exposure to CCoV might be more intense in African than in higher-income settings, as is the case for other respiratory pathogens7. In the international case-control study Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH), 25% of healthy children in Soweto, South Africa were found to be colonized with CCoV8. The frequent exposure of the adult contacts to CCoV is likely to boost their immune responses to CCoV.

To inform whether cross-reactive immunity might have contributed to the COVID-19 epidemiological experience in South Africa, we investigated cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected in the pre COVID-19 pandemic era.

Methods

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand (201128) and done in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained from the South African participants when they were enrolled into the original studies, including consenting for future use of their samples. For the USA samples no additional ethics committee approvals were required per NIH/COMIRB definition of human subject studies.

Samples

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) collected under studies conducted at the Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics (VIDA) research unit during 2013 and 2017 were analysed9. The sample set included cells from South African pregnant or post-partum women, living with and without HIV who participated in an influenza vaccine trial during 20139 or who were enrolled at delivery into a longitudinal study in 2017. The PBMCs used were a convenience sample of available leftover cells. PBMCs were initially separated from blood by Ficoll-Hypaque density gradient centrifugation (Sigma Diagnostics), cryopreserved and stored in liquid nitrogen according to standardized protocols and were shipped, also in liquid nitrogen containers, to the University of Colorado, USA10. Cells were thawed slowly as previously described11. Leukopaks were obtained from COVID-19 convalescent non-pregnant individuals without HIV at Children’s Hospital Colorado Blood Donor Center, USA. PBMCs were separated as described above and used as positive controls.

Laboratory procedures

Cryopreserved PBMCs were thawed as previously described11. Following overnight rest, PBMCs were stimulated for 48 hours in 96-well dual-colour interferon gamma (IFNγ) and interleukin 2 (IL2) FluoroSpot plates (Mabtech catalog number FSP-0102-10; capture antibodies: monoclonal antibodies 1-D1K and MT2A91/2C95; detection antibodies: BAM-conjugated monoclonal antibody 7-B6-1 and biotinylated monoclonal antibody MT8G10) with pre-optimized amounts of SARS-CoV-2 irradiated cell lysate, 1μg/ml spike (S) protein peptides megapool (pool of peptides spanning the entire sequences of the S protein, courtesy of Dr Weiskopf from La Jolla Institute [LJI]), 1μg/ml non-S peptides megapool (predicted epitopes from the non-S region of the viral genome, LJI), 2μg/ml CD8 peptide megapool A (LJI), or CD8 peptide megapool B (CD8-A and CD8-B peptides collectively cover 628 predicted HLA class I CD8+ T-cell epitopes from the entire SARS-CoV-2 proteome, with CD8-A megapool containing S epitopes, among epitopes to other proteins, LJI) in duplicate wells at 250,000 cells/well5,12. Unstimulated negative and phytohemagglutinin (PHA, Sigma) positive controls were included. Bound cytokines were revealed as per the manufacturer’s instructions and read using an Immunospot II instrument (Cellular Technology Limited.).

Analysis

Results were expressed as spot-forming-cells (SFC)/106 PBMC in antigen- or mitogen-stimulated wells after subtraction of SFC in the unstimulated control wells.

Demographic characteristics of the South African women were described as percentages or means with standard deviations (SD). Geometric mean number of SFC/106 PBMCs and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were estimated using logarithmic transformation and compared between study cohorts by Student’s t-test. Responders were defined as individuals with ≥20 SFCs/106 PBMCs after subtraction of the SFCs in unstimulated control wells and with concomitant ≥2-fold increase over the unstimulated wells, and the proportion of responders were compared by Chi-square or Fisher’s exact-tests.

Analyses were performed using STATA version 13.1 (College Station, TX, USA).

An earlier version of this article can be found on Research Square (doi: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-471880/v1).

Results

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 97 South African women were analysed13. This included 33 pregnant and 10 non-pregnant women living with HIV, 38 pregnant and 16 non-pregnant women without HIV (Table 1). PBMCs from seven convalescent individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 were included as controls and comparators.

Table 1. Characteristics of the South African women participating in the study.

N=97
2013 enrolments55 (56.7)
2017 enrolments42 (43.3)
Mean age (SD), years27.3 (6.0)
Living with HIV43 (44.3)
CD4+ cell count ≥350 cells/ml17 (42.5)
[40]
HIV viral load <40 copies/ml15 (42.9)
[35]
On antiretroviral therapy38 (88.4)
Pregnant 71 (73.2)
Women in the second trimester23 (32.4)
Women in the third trimester48 (67.6)

Results are n (%) unless stated otherwise. Numbers in square brackets represent the number of participants with available information. SD: standard deviation.

Table 2 summarizes the responses, and shows that overall, IFNγ responses were detected in 6.2% after stimulation with each spike or non-spike pool in South African women. CD8+ T-cell responses were detected in 5.2% of the women using CD8-A pool and 20.6% after CD8-B pool stimulation. Responses were, however, observed in just 1% after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 irradiated cell lysate. Non-pregnant women showed better response (in terms of SFC geometric mean and percentage of responders) compared to pregnant women after spike stimulation (15.4% vs. 2.8%, p=0.043; respectively). A higher percentage of women without HIV (11.1%) also had responses compared with women living with HIV (0%, p=0.032) after spike stimulation. Overall, 29.9% of women demonstrated response to at least one stimulant. IFNγ responses were evident in all seven convalescent 2020 samples across stimulants, except for CD8-B with only 28.6% showing a response.

Table 2. Interferon γ and Interleukin 2 responses assessed as number of spot-forming-cells or percentage of responders among study participants after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and whole virus.

SpikeNon-spikeCD8-ACD8-BIrradiated
cell lysate
At least one
response
Interferon γ
SFCs per 106 PBMCs geometric mean (95%CI)
Overall pre-2020 participants8.0
(6.2, 10.3)
8.3
(6.8, 10.0)
7.6
(5.5, 10.4)
21.2
(13.1, 34.3)
5.3
(4.0, 7.1)
Pregnant women6.2
(4.8, 8.0)a
8.5
(6.9, 10.5)
6.9
(5.2, 9.3)
20.0
(11.5, 34.8)
5.4
(3.8, 7.5)
Non-pregnant women13.9
(8.2, 23.5)
7.8
(4.9, 12.3)
9.1
(4.0, 20.7)
23.6
(8.8, 63.6)
5.1
(2.5, 10.3)
Women living with HIV6.3
(4.5, 8.8)
7.9
(6.0, 10.3)
7.8
(4.6, 13.1)
21.8
(10.1, 46.9)
5.8
(3.6, 9.3)
Women without HIV9.6
(6.7, 13.8)
8.6
(6.5, 11.4)
7.4
(4.9, 11.2)
20.7
(10.8, 39.8)
5.0
(3.4, 7.4)
2020 participants309.3
(153.1, 624.7)
99.8
(52.2, 190.7)
124.8
(59.4, 262.0)
10.0
(3.8, 25.9)
97.9
(48.1, 199.0)
Responders (%)
Overall pre-2020 participants6
(6.2)
6
(6.2)
5
(5.2)
20
(20.6)
1
(1.0)
29
(29.9)
Pregnant women2
(2.8)a
4
(5.6)
2
(2.8)
14 (19.7)1
(1.4)
19
(26.8)
Non-pregnant women4
(15.4)
2
(7.8)
3
(11.5)
6
(23.1)
010
(38.5)
Women living with HIV0b2
(4.7)
2
(4.7)
7
(16.3)
1
(2.3)
11
(25.6)
Women without HIV6
(11.1)
4
(7.4)
3
(5.6)
13
(24.1)
018
(33.3)
2020 participants7
(100)
7
(100)
7
(100)
2
(28.6)
7
(100)
7
(100)
Interleukin 2
SFCs per 106 PBMCs geometric mean (95%CI)
Overall pre-2020 participants10.0
(7.9, 12.6)
12.6
(10.5, 15.2)
6.7
(5.2, 8.6)
9.4
(7.1, 12.4)
8.4
(6.5, 10.9)
Pregnant women8.4
(6.4, 11.0)a
13.7
(11.0, 17)
6.6
(5.0, 8.7)
9.7
(7.0, 13.4)
8.0
(5.9, 10.9)
Non-pregnant women15.6
(10.1, 24.0)
10.5
(7.3, 15.1)
7.0
(3.6, 13.6)
8.5
(4.6, 15.9)
9.7
(5.6, 16.9)
Women living with HIV8.9
(6.0, 13.3)
10.8
(7.7, 14.9)
6.4
(4.1, 10)
8.9
(5.8, 13.8)
8.3
(5.5, 12.4)
Women without HIV10.6
(7.9, 14.4)
14.1
(11.3, 17.5)
6.9
(5.0, 9.5)
9.7
(6.6, 14.2)
8.5
(6.0, 12.3)
2020 participants344.0
(195.5, 605.3)
177.8
(103.8, 304.7)
55.3
(30.9, 98.9)
16.1
(8.9, 29.1)
153.4
(81.7, 288.4)
Responders (%)
Overall pre-2020 participants15
(15.5)
22
(22.7)
6
(6.2)
12
(12.4)
3
(3.1)
38
(39.2)
Pregnant women9
(12.7)
18
(25.4)
5
(7.0)
10
(14.1)
3
(4.2)
29
(40.9)
Non-pregnant women6
(23.1)
4
(15.4)
1
(3.9)
2
(7.7)
09
(34.6)
Women living with HIV5
(11.6)
8
(18.6)
3
(7.0)
4
(9.3)
1
(2.3)
11
(25.6)b
Women without HIV10
(18.5)
14
(25.9)
3
(5.6)
8
(14.8)
2
(3.7)
27
(50.0)
2020 participants7
(100)
7
(100)
6
(85.7)
1
(14.3)
7
(100)
7
(100)
Responders (%) to either Interferon g or Interleukin 2
Overall pre-2020 participants17
(17.5)
24
(24.7)
10
(10.3)
25
(25.8)
4
(4.1)
50
(51.6)
Pregnant women10
(14.1)
20
(28.2)
7
(9.9)
19
(26.8)
4
(5.6)
37
(52.1)
Non-pregnant women7
(26.9)
4
(15.4)
3
(11.5)
6
(23.1)
013
(50.0)
Women living with HIV5
(11.6)
9
(20.9)
5
(11.6)
9
(20.9)
2
(4.7)
17
(39.5)b
Women without HIV12
(22.2)
15
(27.8)
5
(9.3)
16
(29.6)
2
(3.7)
33
(61.1)
2020 participants7
(100)
7
(100)
7
(100)
2
(28.6)
7
(100)
7
(100)

Responders are women with ≥20 SFCs after subtracting media control and with concomitant ≥2-fold increase from media only stimulation.

SFCs: Spot forming cells.

95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

ap-value < 0.05 pregnant vs. non-pregnant.

bp-value < 0.05 living with HIV vs. without HIV.

Interleukin 2 was produced in response to spike and non-spike pools by 15.5% and 22.7% of the South African women, respectively. CD8+ T-cell responses were detected in 6.2% and 12.4% of the women after CD8-A and CD8-B pools stimulation, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 irradiated cell lysate elicited responses in 6.2% of women. Non-pregnant women had significantly higher SFC geometric mean compared to pregnant women after spike stimulation (p=0.017). Overall, 39.2% of women demonstrated response to at least one stimulant, with this being higher in women without HIV (50%) than in women living with HIV (25.6%, p=0.014). All seven convalescent 2020 patients demonstrated IL2 responses to at least one stimulant, however, only one (14.3%) participant showed response after CD8-B pool incubation.

Considering either IFNγ or IL2 production, 51.6% of women demonstrated response to at least one stimulant. Women without HIV (61.1%) demonstrated better overall response than women living with HIV (39.5%, p=0.035).

Discussion

Using PBMCs collected before 2020, in this antigen-specific analysis we confirmed that approximately 50% of adult South African women, who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, had cellular immune responses against peptides derived from SARS-CoV-2. This is similar to the frequency reported in studies from the USA (40–60%), Singapore (51%) and Europe (35%)12,14,15. Notably, adult plasma samples collected prior to 2020 from a similar cohort in South Africa as used in this study showed no reactivity to the receptor binding domain of the immunogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein when tested by an in-house Luminex assay16.

Since CCoV and SARS-CoV-2 belong to the same coronavirinae subfamily, pre-existing CCoV-specific T cells could recognize SARS-CoV-2, and lead to SARS-CoV-2 reactive cells in unexposed individuals. In theory, cross-reactive cells in SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals could mount a rapid adaptive immune response against the novel virus and protect them from infection17 or impact the clinical outcomes of the disease, as suggested by a study finding that recent CCoV infections were associated with less severe COVID-1918.

The differential magnitude of response elicited by CD8-A and CD8-B pools in convalescent individuals in our study has been noted before and may be related to the fact that the CD8-A pool contains immunodominant spike epitopes and other structural proteins12. Notably, in SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals the IFNγ response to CD8-B pool was higher than to any of the other stimulants, suggesting highest cross reactivity between CCoV and SARS-CoV-2 at the level of CD8 T-cell epitopes in non-structural proteins17,19. These findings are consistent with the observation that the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein may induce an immunodominant response in both COVID-19-recovered individuals and in subjects that have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-220. This is relevant for the design of new vaccines that might include non-structural targets combined with the spike protein to maintaining the benefit of vaccination against novel viral that escape naturally acquired or current vaccine-induced humoral immunity.

The IFNγ assay predominantly measures effector responses, while the IL2 mainly measures memory responses. As such, IL2 responses were slightly higher than IFNγ responses to the whole virus inactivated antigen, typically processed and presented in the context of HLA Class II. IL2 production in response to spike and non-spike pools was also higher than IFNγ, consistent with memory CD4 T-cell stimulation. In contrast, the CD8 pools elicited slightly higher IFNγ responses. The higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 naive women with IL2 production after SARS-CoV-2 antigenic stimulation suggests that memory responses may be more sensitive than effector responses for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive responses generated by past infection with CCoV. Moreover, the majority of PBMCs analysed were collected from pregnant women and it is well established that IFNγ production decreases in pregnancy21.

Although women living with HIV had lower responses compared to women without HIV, cross-reactivity was still detected among women with HIV, which might explain why many reports, albeit not all, did not identify HIV infection as a risk factor for severe COVID-1922,23.

While the South African women might have recently received influenza and/or tetanus vaccines, a limitation of our study is that we do not know the bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination status of the study participants, and we did not account for these heterologous vaccinations, as it has been described that some vaccinations may affect the immune responses to SARS-CoV-224,25.

In conclusion, in this pilot study we demonstrate the presence of cross-reactive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 among South African women that has possibly been induced by past exposure to CCoV. Whether this immunity is relevant in influencing clinical outcomes still needs to be demonstrated.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: pre_covid_Aug2021.csv https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16699963.v113.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Oct 2021
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
Gates Open Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Nunes MC, Johnson MJ, Kwatra G et al. T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed South African women [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Gates Open Res 2022, 5:150 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13373.2)
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
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 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2022
Revised
Views
9
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Jul 2022
Marcin Ratajewski, Institute of Medical Biology, Laboratory of Epigenetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź, Poland 
Approved
VIEWS 9
I have ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Ratajewski M. Reviewer Report For: T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed South African women [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Gates Open Res 2022, 5:150 (https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.15006.r32251)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 06 Oct 2021
Views
25
Cite
Reviewer Report 25 May 2022
Marcin Ratajewski, Institute of Medical Biology, Laboratory of Epigenetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź, Poland 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 25
Nunes et al. show results indicating that PBMCs collected from pre-pandemic donors respond to SARS-CoV-2 viral protein antigens, indicating that a certain pool of the South African population has resistance to this virus. The authors point out that this may ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Ratajewski M. Reviewer Report For: T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed South African women [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Gates Open Res 2022, 5:150 (https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14618.r32047)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 13 Jul 2022
    marta nunes, South African Medical Research Council, Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
    13 Jul 2022
    Author Response
    Nunes et al. show results indicating that PBMCs collected from pre-pandemic donors respond to SARS-CoV-2 viral protein antigens, indicating that a certain pool of the South African population has resistance ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 13 Jul 2022
    marta nunes, South African Medical Research Council, Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
    13 Jul 2022
    Author Response
    Nunes et al. show results indicating that PBMCs collected from pre-pandemic donors respond to SARS-CoV-2 viral protein antigens, indicating that a certain pool of the South African population has resistance ... Continue reading
Views
20
Cite
Reviewer Report 16 Mar 2022
Helen Wagstaffe, Imperial College London, London, UK 
Approved
VIEWS 20
The article by Nunes et al. is a well written report of a pilot study conducted to measure T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed individuals. The study utilises samples collected pre-pandemic and COVID-19 samples collected during the pandemic as positive ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Wagstaffe H. Reviewer Report For: T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed South African women [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Gates Open Res 2022, 5:150 (https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14618.r31832)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 13 Jul 2022
    marta nunes, South African Medical Research Council, Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
    13 Jul 2022
    Author Response
    The article by Nunes et al. is a well written report of a pilot study conducted to measure T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed individuals. The study utilises samples collected ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 13 Jul 2022
    marta nunes, South African Medical Research Council, Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
    13 Jul 2022
    Author Response
    The article by Nunes et al. is a well written report of a pilot study conducted to measure T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed individuals. The study utilises samples collected ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Oct 2021
Comment
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

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Gates grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Gates Open Research.

You must provide your first name
You must provide your last name
You must provide a valid email address
You must provide an institution.

Thank you!

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Gates Open Research

Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.