Transient Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR without Induction of Systemic Immune Responses

  1. Barbara C. Gärtner
  2. Verena Klemis
  3. Tina Schmidt
  4. Martina Sester
  5. Tim Meyer

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 testing is dominated by PCR to guide treatment and individual as well as public health preventive measures. Among 1700 football (soccer) players and staff of the German Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 who were regularly tested by PCR twice weekly, 98 individuals had a positive PCR (May 2020 to mid-January 2021). A subset of these were retested shortly after the initial positive result. Among those, 11 subjects were identified who only had a transient single positive PCR of low viral load. All individuals were asymptomatic and none developed long COVID. We tested SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA as well as SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4 und CD8 positive T cells, and showed that only one out of 11 individuals developed SARS-CoV-2 specific cellular and humoral immunity after the positive PCR, whereas a specific immunity was undetectable in all other individuals. Thus, a single positive PCR might indicate that transient colonization of the upper respiratory tract with SARS-CoV-2 may occur without systemic induction of specific adaptive immunity. Together with test artifacts as another potential reason for a transiently positive test, this finding may favor cautious interpretation of positive PCR results or retesting before initiating intervening treatment or infection control measures in some cases.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines11020482
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.07.21260153: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.07.21260153v1 on medRxiv