ArticleVaccines2024
T Cell Responses to BA.2.86 and JN.1 SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Elderly Subjects.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aging and vaccines: impact of immunosenescence and inflammaging in vaccine response.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Role of senescent CD4Journal of translational medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesNew SARS-CoV-2 variants are continuously emerging, making it essential to assess the efficacy of vaccine-induced immune protection. Limited information is available regarding T cell responses to BA.2.86 and JN.1 variants, particularly in elderly individuals.
methodsWe evaluated T cell and total IgG responses against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain, as well as BA.2.86 and JN.1 omicron subvariants, in two groups of subjects. One group consisted of SARS-CoV-2-exposed elderly individuals who were fully vaccinated with the BNT162B2 mRNA vaccine, with a booster dose of the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine (XBB.1.5) at least 15 days after receiving a booster dose of the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine. The second group consisted of healthcare workers who were unexposed to SARS-CoV-2 one month after the booster dose of the first-generation BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. T cell activation-induced markers (AIM) and IFN-γ secretion were evaluated by flow cytometry and ELISpot assays, respectively.
resultsElderly subjects showed reduced IgG levels against JN.1 compared with the ancestral strain. BA.2.86 stimulation resulted in lower IFN-γ levels in the elderly versus the COVID-19-naïve group. AIM analysis showed that among T cells, CD4+ were the most responsive, with a reduced proportion of JN.1-reactive CD4+ T cells compared with the ancestral strain in the SARS-CoV-2-unexposed group. Despite receiving the updated booster, the elderly group showed reduced CD4+ T cell reactivity to BA.2.86.
conclusionsThe XBB.1.5-containing vaccine induced lower CD4+ T cell responses against BA.2.86 in the elderly. CD4+ T cells from BNT16b2-vaccinated, COVID-19-naïve subjects recognized ancestral and BA.2.86 RBD strains while showing reduced responses to JN.1. These results emphasize the need for tailored vaccine strategies for emerging variants, particularly in vulnerable populations.
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.