ArticleThe Journal of general virology2024
Comparison of different T cell assays for the retrospective determination of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Article in The Journal of general virology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robust antibody and T cell responses tracked longitudinally in patients with long COVID.The Journal of general virology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is important to be able to retrospectively determine severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections with high accuracy, both for post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemiological studies, and to distinguish between Long COVID and other multi-syndromic diseases that have overlapping symptoms. Although serum antibody levels can be measured to retrospectively diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infections, peptide stimulation of memory T cell responses is a more sensitive approach. This is because robust memory T cells are generated after SARS-CoV-2 infection and persist even after antibodies wane below detectability thresholds. In this study, we compare T cell responses using FluoroSpot-based methods and overnight stimulation of whole blood with SARS-CoV-2 peptides followed by an ELISA. Both approaches have comparable sensitivity and specificity but require different equipment and samples to be used. Furthermore, the elimination of peptides that cross-react with other coronaviruses increases the assay specificity but trades off some sensitivity. Finally, this approach can be used on archival, cryopreserved PBMCs. This work shows comparative advantages for several methods to measure SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses that could be utilized by any laboratory studying the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
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.