Transient Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR without Induction of Systemic Immune Responses
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
- @AilisDr's saved articles (AilisDr)
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
-
-
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
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:…
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
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
-
