ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Dynamic changes of neutralizing antibody and memory T cell responses six months post Omicron XBB reinfection.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Study of Cathepsin L Inhibitors as SARS-CoV-2 Therapeutics Using Enhanced SVR with Multiple Kernel Function and PSO.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- The XBB.1.5 mRNA booster vaccine does not significantly increase the percentage of XBB.1.5 mono-reactive T cells.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: With the continued prevalence of COVID-19, repeated infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 has become common. However, studies on immune persistence post Omicron XBB reinfection are limited. Methods: We prospectively studied the durability and cross-reactivity of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and T cell responses among 20 subjects who suffered Omicron BA.5 infection with or without Omicron XBB reinfection over 6-month through the pseudovirus neutralization test and the fluorospot assay. Results: NAbs against EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1 subvariants were decreased and undetectable at 6-month post Omicron BA.5 infection, while those elicited by Omicron XBB reinfection were significant increased and remained detectable against all detected variants within 6-month. Furthermore, in subjects with Omicron XBB reinfection, memory T cell responses could cross-recognized wild-type and Omicron spike peptides and reached peak at 3-month. Interestingly, comparable robust T cell responses were observed among non-seroconverted subjects post Omicron XBB exposure. Conclusion: Though the NAbs against various emerging Omicron subvariants elicited by Omicron XBB reinfection can persist for at least 6-month, the HCWs should strengthen personal protection and timely be immunized with updated vaccines upon current circulating variants or conserved T epitope.
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.