Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2022;7(8):e157963. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.157963.
Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 infections are frequently milder in children than adults, suggesting that immune responses may vary with age. However, information is limited regarding SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in young children.Methods We compared receptor binding domain–binding antibody (RBDAb) titers and SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, measured by pseudovirus-neutralizing antibody assay in serum specimens obtained from children aged 0–4 years and 5–17 years and in adults aged 18–62 years at the time of enrollment in a prospective longitudinal household study of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Results Among 56 seropositive participants at enrollment, children aged 0–4 years had more than 10-fold higher RBDAb titers than adults (416 vs. 31, P < 0.0001) and the highest RBDAb titers in 11 of 12 households with seropositive children and adults. Children aged 0–4 years had only 2-fold higher neutralizing antibody than adults, resulting in higher binding-to-neutralizing antibody ratios compared with adults (2.36 vs. 0.35 for ID50, P = 0.0004).Conclusion These findings suggest that young children mount robust antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 following community infections. Additionally, these results support using neutralizing antibody to measure the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 0–4 years.Funding CDC (award 75D30120C08737).
Authors
Ruth A. Karron, Maria Garcia Quesada, Elizabeth A. Schappell, Stephen D. Schmidt, Maria Deloria Knoll, Marissa K. Hetrich, Vic Veguilla, Nicole Doria-Rose, Fatimah S. Dawood, SEARCh Study Team
Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 444 | 102 |
| 111 | 15 | |
| Figure | 182 | 0 |
| Table | 40 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 82 | 2 |
| Citation downloads | 156 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,015 | 119 |
| Total Views | 1,134 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
