Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36113259›Full record

ArticleAnnals of diagnostic pathology2022

The differential immune response in mild versus fatal SARS-CoV2 infection.

David Suster, Esmerina Tili, Gerard J Nuovo

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of diagnostic pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David SusterRutgers University Hospital Department of Pathology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Esmerina TiliThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Gerard J NuovoThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA; GnomeDX, Powell, OH, USA. Electronic address: nuovo.1@osu.edu.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USThe Ohio State University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared the immune response in mild versus fatal SARS-CoV2 infection. Forty nasopharyngeal swabs with either productive mild infection (n = 20) or negative for SARS-CoV2 (n = 20) were tested along with ten lung sections from people who died of COVID-19 which contained abundant SARS-CoV2 and ten controls. There was a 25-fold increase in the CD3+T cell numbers in the viral positive nasopharyngeal swabs compared to the controls (p < 0.001) and no change in the CD3+T cell count in the fatal COVID-19 lungs versus the controls. CD11b + and CD206+ macrophage counts were significantly higher in the mild versus fatal disease (p = 0.002). In situ analysis for SARS-CoV2 RNA found ten COVID-19 lung sections that had no/rare detectable virus and also lacked the microangiopathy typical of the viral positive sections. These viral negative lung tissues when compared to the viral positive lung samples showed a highly significant increase in CD3+ and CD8 T cells (p < 0.001), equivalent numbers of CD163+ cells, and significantly less PDL1, CD11b and CD206+ cells (p = 0.002). It is concluded that mild SARS-CoV2 infection is marked by a much stronger CD3/CD8 T cell, CD11b, and CD206 macrophage response than the fatal lung disease where viral RNA is abundant.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pneumonia, ViralHumansImmunityRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2RNA, ViralCOVID-19Fatal diseaseImmune responseMild diseaseSARS-CoV2

Identifiers

PMID36113259
PMCPMC9436872
OpenAlexW4294190646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.