Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039453›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2023

Comparison of T-cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) protein using an in-house flow-cytometric assay in laboratory employees with and without previously confirmed COVID-19 in South Africa: nationwide cross-sectional study.

Cathrine van Rooyen, Marieke Brauer, Petri Swanepoel, Sylvia van den Berg, Cassandre van der Merwe, Marischa van der Merwe, Robin Green, Piet Becker

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cathrine van RooyenImmunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa vrooyenc@ampath.co.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5677-0395
Marieke BrauerImmunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa.
Petri SwanepoelImmunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa.
Sylvia van den BergImmunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa.
Cassandre van der MerweCellular Immunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa.
Marischa van der MerweCellular Immunology, Ampath Laboratories, Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa.
Robin GreenPaediatrics and Child Health, University of Pretoria Faculty of Health Sciences, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Piet BeckerResearch Office, University of Pretoria Faculty of Health Sciences, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Education Labour Relations Council · ZASouth African Medical Research Council · ZAUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare specific T-cell responses between laboratory employees in South Africa with and without previously diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

methodsEmployees at a private pathology laboratory in South Africa were invited to participate in a nationwide cross-sectional study. T-cell proliferation to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-proteins and spike (S)-proteins was measured by flow cytometry and compared between participants.

resultsBased on classification according to SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT)-PCR results, a total of 81% (42/52) of positive participants demonstrated T-cell proliferation to SARS-CoV-2 N-proteins or S-proteins (95% CI 67.5% to 90.4%), while 62% (68/110) of negative participants also had detectable T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteins (95% CI 52.1% to 70.9%). When classified according to SARS-CoV-2 serology results, 92.6% (50/54) of positive participants demonstrated T-cell proliferation to SARS-CoV-2 proteins (95% CI 82.1 to 97,9 %), while 56% (60/108) of negative participants demonstrated T-cell proliferation (95% CI 45.7% to 65.1%). The magnitude of the T-cell responses as determined by a stimulation index, was significantly higher in the group previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 than in the negative group. A statistically significant difference in T-cell proliferation was noted between high risk and low risk groups for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within the negative group, but no significant difference in magnitude of the response.

conclusionsA significant proportion of South African laboratory employees who were not previously diagnosed with COVID-19 demonstrated T-cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 N-proteins and S-proteins. The pre-existing T-cell proliferation responses may be attributable to cross-reactive immune responses to other human coronaviruses, or possibly asymptomatic infection.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFlow CytometryHumansLymphocyte ActivationNucleocapsidSARS-CoV-2South AfricaT-LymphocytesCOVID-19diagnostic techniques and proceduresimmunologyvirology

Identifiers

PMID35039453
PMCPMC8783969
OpenAlexW4205315912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.