ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2020
Preliminary Analysis of B- and T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strong SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response After Booster Dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccines in Uninfected Healthcare Workers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Lung Regeneration.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Characterization of SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral immunity and its potential applications and therapeutic prospects.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2022Review
- Clinical and diagnostic value of the combination of lymphocyte count and creatine kinase in the detection of coronavirus 2019.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Positivity of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies among Korean Healthy Healthcare Workers 1 and 2 Weeks after Second Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccination.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Giardiasis reactivation during severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.Parasitology international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveWithout a specific antiviral treatment or vaccine, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic, affecting over 200 countries worldwide. A better understanding of B- and T-cell immunity is critical to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
methodsA cohort of 129 patients with COVID-19 and 20 suspected cases were enrolled in this study, and a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) and a magnetic chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (MCLIA) were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG detection. Additionally, 127 patients with COVID-19 were selected for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to evaluate B-cell immunity, and peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets were quantified in 95 patients with COVID-19 to evaluate T-cell immunity.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of LFIA-IgM/IgG and MCLIA-IgM/IgG assays for detecting SARS-CoV infection were > 90%, comparable with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction detection. IgM antibody levels peaked on day 13 and began to fall on day 21, while IgG antibody levels peaked on day 17 and were maintained until tracking ended. Lymphocyte and subset enumeration suggested that lymphocytopenia occurred in patients with COVID-19.
conclusionsLFIA-IgM/IgG and MCLIA-IgM/IgG assays can indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection, which elicits an antibody response. Lymphocytopenia occurs in patients with COVID-19, which possibly weakens the T-cell response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.