New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

How Do People Resist COVID Infections?

Immune cells might abort SARS-CoV-2 infection, forestalling a positive PCR or antibody test, a study in hospital workers suggests

Gloved hands preparing vaccine.

A nurse prepares a dose the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine at a vaccination center in Derby, central England on September 20, 2021.

Data from dozens of UK health-care workers suggest a tantalizing possibility: that some people can clear a nascent SARS-CoV-2 infection from their bodies so quickly that they never test positive for the virus nor even produce antibodies against it. The data also suggest that such resistance is conferred by immune players called memory T cells—possibly those produced after exposure to coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

“I’ve never seen anything like that. It’s really surprising that the T cells might be able to control an infection so quickly,” says Shane Crotty, an immunologist at La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California, who was not involved in the research.

But the study’s authors strongly caution that their results do not show that people who have had the common cold are protected against COVID-19. And the authors also acknowledge that their findings have many caveats, meaning that it’s too early to say with certainty that people can stop an infection in its tracks.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the study, published on 10 November in Nature, the authors examined blood samples collected in the first weeks of the pandemic from nearly 60 UK health-care workers. All worked in hospitals, putting them at high risk of contracting COVID-19, but never tested positive or produced any antibodies to the virus for four months after enrolling in the study.

The researchers noticed that in 20 of these ‘seronegative’ participants, T cells had multiplied—a sign that the immune system might be gearing up to fight an infection. Nineteen of these individuals also had increased levels of an immune-system protein called IFI27, which the authors say might be an early marker of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The authors say that these data are evidence for ‘abortive infections’, meaning that the virus made an incursion into the body but failed to take hold.

The authors hypothesized that T cells halt SARS-CoV-2 by disabling a cluster of viral proteins called the replication transcription complex, which helps the virus to reproduce. They found evidence to support this theory: a far higher proportion of the seronegative participants had T cells that recognize this complex than did health-care workers who got COVID-19.

The researchers also found that even T cells from blood samples collected before the pandemic could recognize SARS-CoV-2—and most strongly recognized the replication complex. These T cells could have been generated by infections with coronaviruses that cause common colds, but without direct evidence of how or when the cells originated, it is possible that other triggers contributed to their formation, the authors say.

Most existing COVID-19 vaccines target SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, which it uses to invade human cells. Spike proteins vary considerably between different coronaviruses. But replication complexes are similar across multiple types of coronavirus, making this part of the virus a promising target for a ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccine—one that protects against a broad array of such viruses, the authors conclude.

But scientists not involved in the study note that there’s no definitive evidence that the health-care workers who purportedly cleared the virus actually had any SARS-CoV-2 particles in their bodies to begin with. That makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about the role of these T cells, says Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University in New York City.

Study co-author Mala Maini, a viral immunologist at University College London, acknowledges that her team lacks direct confirmation of abortive infections among the study participants. But she notes that the timing of the virus’s uncontrolled early spread in the UK is well documented. As a result, she says, it is probably not a coincidence that the researchers noticed more T cells in participants’ blood around the same time that people with COVID-19 were filling UK hospitals. “The timing is so clear-cut,” she says.

Clearance for all?

Even if some of the study participants did clear the SARS-CoV-2 virus before it could take hold, it’s possible that infections with variants such as Delta can’t be cleared in the same way, says Marcus Buggert, an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden. He notes that the study documents the phenomenon only in health-care workers, raising the possibility that only people such as hospital staff, who are regularly exposed to a wide variety of respiratory viruses, can mount an abortive response.

The study was also not designed to determine whether the abortive response is driven by T cells or another, unknown immune process. Crotty says it will be important to test the T-cell theory in animals, and Maini says a human challenge trial, in which participants are deliberately exposed to SARS-CoV-2, would help to establish whether these T cells are really helping to clear the infection.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 11 2021.

Max Kozlov is a science journalist at Nature whose work has appeared in the Atlantic, Nature, Quanta Magazine and Science, among other publications.

More by Max Kozlov

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe