ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
Coordinated innate and T-cell immune responses in mild COVID-19 patients from household contacts of COVID-19 cases during the first pandemic wave.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Host-pathogen interaction in community-acquired pneumonia: a focus on the immune response.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Natalizumab and fumarate treatment differentially modulate CD4+ T cell and B cell subtypes in multiple sclerosis patients without impacting durable COVID-19 vaccine responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Observational
- Improving the diagnostic performance for prior COVID-19 with T-SPOT, an interferon-gamma release assay.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The Importance of Measuring SARS-CoV-2-Specific T-Cell Responses in an Ongoing Pandemic.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Characterization of the immune impairment of patients with tuberculosis and COVID-19 coinfection.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
- Emerging viral infections in immunocompromised patients: A great challenge to better define the role of immune response.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Impact of aging on immunity in the context of COVID-19, HIV, and tuberculosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Tuberculosis and COVID-19 in the elderly: factors driving a higher burden of disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Initial immune response after exposure toFrontiers in immunology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To better define the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19, the present study aims to characterize the early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in household contacts of COVID-19 cases. In particular, innate, T- and B-cell specific responses were evaluated over time. Methods: Household contacts of COVID-19 cases screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab for surveillance purposes were enrolled (T0, n=42). Of these, 28 subjects returned for a follow-up test (T1). The innate response was assessed by detecting a panel of soluble factors by multiplex-technology in plasma samples. Cell-mediated response was evaluated by measuring interferon (IFN)-γ levels by ELISA in plasma harvested from whole-blood stimulated with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools, including spike (S), nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins. The serological response was assessed by quantifying anti-Receptor-Binding-Domain (RBD), anti-Nucleocapsid (N), whole virus indirect immunofluorescence, and neutralizing antibodies. Results: At T0, higher levels of plasmatic IFN-α, IL-1ra, MCP-1 and IP-10, and lower levels of IL-1β, IL-9, MIP-1β and RANTES were observed in subjects with positive swab compared to individuals with a negative one (p<0.05). Plasmatic IFN-α was the only cytokine detectable in subjects with positive SARS-CoV-2 swabs with high accuracy for swab score positivity (0.93, p<0.0001). Among subjects with positive swabs, significant negative correlations were found among the RT-PCR cycle threshold values reported for genes S and N and IFN-α or IP-10 levels. At T0, the IFN-γ T-cell specific response was detected in 50% (5/10) of subjects with positive swab, while anti-RBD/anti-N antibodies showed a positivity rate of 10% (1/10). At T1, the IFN-γ T-cell specific response was detected in most of the confirmed-infection subjects (77.8%, 7/9), whereas the serological response was still observed in a minority of them (44.4%, 4/9). Overall, the swab test showed a moderate concordance with the T-cell response (78.6%, k=0.467), and a scarce concordance with the serological one (72.9%, k=0.194). Conclusions: Plasmatic IFN-α and the IFN-γ T-cell specific response appear early even in the absence of seroconversion, and show a greater positivity rate than the serological response in household contacts with positive swab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.