https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S00 ... ctitle0015Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2−reactive CD4+ T cells in ∼40-60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2
Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Interesting suggestions for immunity here. Not my field, but it looks possibly optimistic.
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
To help those of us below minimum understanding; is the implication that roughly half of people might have some small advantage in immune response to Covid19 due to previous common cold exposure?
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Yes, that’s how it was suggested to me by someone who knows more than I do about this field.
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Interesting to know if this explains the discrepancy between asymptotic/mild v severe cases. If I remember right, T-cell responses get weaker in old age too.
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Well in that case I'm now glad I had a stinking cold just as all this was kicking off.
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
I seem to remember something on the radio early on in all this, about similarity to cold viruses circulating back in the 80s that might confer some partial immunity. No idea if that came to anything.
Re: Cross-reactive T cell recognition between ‘common cold’ and CoV-2
Is this the first time that an xkcd might have been refuted effectively on the day after it was published?
https://m.xkcd.com/2306/
https://m.xkcd.com/2306/
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!