Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Immunology›Cross Reactions
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Cross Reactions

Immunology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

Serological reactions in which an antiserum against one antigen reacts with a non-identical but closely related antigen.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (892 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Serological reactions in which an antiserum against one antigen reacts with a non-identical but closely related antigen.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Cross Reaction; Reaction, Cross; Reactions, Cross.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Antigen-Antibody Reactions
See also
Immunity, Heterologous

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 39,902 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Cross Reactions” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 2,445 of them (6.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 26,307 records.

Reviews account for 2,361 records (5.9%) and meta-analyses for 18. Randomized controlled trials number 161 (0.4%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 26,307 records; 2000-2009: 5,741 records; 2010-2019: 5,409 records; 2020 onward: 2,445 records26,307through 19995,7412000-20095,4092010-20192,4452020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199926,307
2000-20095,741
2010-20195,409
2020 onward2,445
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 5.9 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.0 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.4 percentReviews5.9% (2,361)Meta-analyses0.0% (18)Randomized controlled trials0.4% (161)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 39,902 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2,3615.9%
Meta-analyses180.0%
Randomized controlled trials1610.4%

Method: PubMed query "Cross Reactions"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in immunology

Immune responses are studied in model organisms, in cells from donors and in patients, and the same pathway can behave differently across these settings. Mouse immune systems differ from human ones in important ways, and blood measurements may not reflect what happens in tissues. Clinical conclusions about immune-mediated disease or immunotherapy come mainly from controlled trials and long-term cohorts. Check the species and tissue studied, whether markers were linked to outcomes patients notice, and the follow-up time.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike cross-recognize Omicron
Keeton R, Tincho MB, Ngomti A, Baguma R, Benede N, Suzuki A, et al.
2022Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
537cc by
PMID 35102311 · DOI · PMC8930768
Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts
Kundu R, Narean JS, Wang L, Fenn J, Pillay T, Fernandez ND, et al.
2022Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
298cc by
PMID 35013199 · DOI · PMC8748880
Dengue Virus Envelope Dimer Epitope Monoclonal Antibodies Isolated from Dengue Patients Are Protective against Zika Virus
Swanstrom JA, Plante JA, Plante KS, Young EF, McGowan E, Gallichotte EN, et al.
2016Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
196cc by
PMID 27435464 · DOI · PMC4958264
Mosaic sarbecovirus nanoparticles elicit cross-reactive responses in pre-vaccinated animals
Cohen AA, Keeffe JR, Schiepers A, Dross SE, Greaney AJ, Rorick AV, et al.
2024Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
55cc by
PMID 39197450 · DOI · PMC11460329

T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike cross-recognize Omicron [1]

Research article Keeton R, Tincho MB, Ngomti A, Baguma R, Benede N, Suzuki A, et al. · · 2022 · cited 537 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.
Closing excerpt
It remains to be determined whether well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron contributes to protection from severe COVID-19 and is linked to early clinical observations from South Africa and elsewhere9-12.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (223 words)

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) has multiple spike protein mutations1,2 that contribute to viral escape from antibody neutralization3-6 and reduce vaccine protection from infection7,8. The extent to which other components of the adaptive response such as T cells may still target Omicron and contribute to protection from severe outcomes is unknown. Here we assessed the ability of T cells to react to Omicron spike protein in participants who were vaccinated with Ad26.CoV2.S or BNT162b2, or unvaccinated convalescent COVID-19 patients (n = 70). Between 70% and 80% of the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar for Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. In patients who were hospitalized with Omicron infections (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). Thus, despite extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies of Omicron, the majority of T cell responses induced by vaccination or infection cross-recognize the variant. It remains to be determined whether well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron contributes to protection from severe COVID-19 and is linked to early clinical observations from South Africa and elsewhere9-12.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35102311 · DOI · PMC8930768

Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts [2]

Research article Kundu R, Narean JS, Wang L, Fenn J, Pillay T, Fernandez ND, et al. · · 2022 · cited 298 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Cross-reactive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 have been observed in pre-pandemic cohorts and proposed to contribute to host protection.
Closing excerpt
Our results are thus consistent with pre-existing non-spike cross-reactive memory T cells protecting SARS-CoV-2-naïve contacts from infection, thereby supporting the inclusion of non-spike antigens in second-generation vaccines.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (158 words)

Cross-reactive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 have been observed in pre-pandemic cohorts and proposed to contribute to host protection. Here we assess 52 COVID-19 household contacts to capture immune responses at the earliest timepoints after SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Using a dual cytokine FLISpot assay on peripheral blood mononuclear cells, we enumerate the frequency of T cells specific for spike, nucleocapsid, membrane, envelope and ORF1 SARS-CoV-2 epitopes that cross-react with human endemic coronaviruses. We observe higher frequencies of cross-reactive (p = 0.0139), and nucleocapsid-specific (p = 0.0355) IL-2-secreting memory T cells in contacts who remained PCR-negative despite exposure (n = 26), when compared with those who convert to PCR-positive (n = 26); no significant difference in the frequency of responses to spike is observed, hinting at a limited protective function of spike-cross-reactive T cells. Our results are thus consistent with pre-existing non-spike cross-reactive memory T cells protecting SARS-CoV-2-naïve contacts from infection, thereby supporting the inclusion of non-spike antigens in second-generation vaccines.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35013199 · DOI · PMC8748880

Dengue Virus Envelope Dimer Epitope Monoclonal Antibodies Isolated from Dengue Patients Are Protective against Zika Virus [3]

Research article Swanstrom JA, Plante JA, Plante KS, Young EF, McGowan E, Gallichotte EN, et al. · · 2016 · cited 196 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
UnlabelledZika virus (ZIKV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus responsible for thousands of cases of severe fetal malformations and neurological disease since its introduction to Brazil in 2013.
Closing excerpt
Furthermore, the identification of a functionally conserved epitope between ZIKV and DENV raises the possibility that a vaccine may be able to elicit neutralizing antibodies against both viruses.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (359 words)

UnlabelledZika virus (ZIKV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus responsible for thousands of cases of severe fetal malformations and neurological disease since its introduction to Brazil in 2013. Antibodies to flaviviruses can be protective, resulting in lifelong immunity to reinfection by homologous virus. However, cross-reactive antibodies can complicate flavivirus diagnostics and promote more severe disease, as noted after serial dengue virus (DENV) infections. The endemic circulation of DENV in South America and elsewhere raises concerns that preexisting flavivirus immunity may modulate ZIKV disease and transmission potential. Here, we report on the ability of human monoclonal antibodies and immune sera derived from dengue patients to neutralize contemporary epidemic ZIKV strains. We demonstrate that a class of human monoclonal antibodies isolated from DENV patients neutralizes ZIKV in cell culture and is protective in a lethal murine model. We also tested a large panel of convalescent-phase immune sera from humans exposed to primary and repeat DENV infection. Although ZIKV is most closely related to DENV compared to other human-pathogenic flaviviruses, most DENV immune sera (73%) failed to neutralize ZIKV, while others had low (50% effective concentration [EC50], 1:100 serum dilution; 9%) levels of cross-neutralizing antibodies. Our results establish that ZIKV and DENV share epitopes that are targeted by neutralizing, protective human antibodies. The availability of potently neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies provides an immunotherapeutic approach to control life-threatening ZIKV infection and also points to the possibility of repurposing DENV vaccines to induce cross-protective immunity to ZIKV.ImportanceZIKV is an emerging arbovirus that has been associated with severe neurological birth defects and fetal loss in pregnant women and Guillain-Barré syndrome in adults. Currently, there is no vaccine or therapeutic for ZIKV. The identification of a class of antibodies (envelope dimer epitope 1 [EDE1]) that potently neutralizes ZIKV in addition to all four DENV serotypes points to a potential immunotherapeutic to combat ZIKV. This is especially salient given the precedent of antibody therapy to treat pregnant women infected with other viruses associated with microcephaly, such as cytomegalovirus and rubella virus. Furthermore, the identification of a functionally conserved epitope between ZIKV and DENV raises the possibility that a vaccine may be able to elicit neutralizing antibodies against both viruses.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 27435464 · DOI · PMC4958264

Mosaic sarbecovirus nanoparticles elicit cross-reactive responses in pre-vaccinated animals [4]

Research article Cohen AA, Keeffe JR, Schiepers A, Dross SE, Greaney AJ, Rorick AV, et al. · · 2024 · cited 55 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Immunization with mosaic-8b (nanoparticles presenting 8 SARS-like betacoronavirus [sarbecovirus] receptor-binding domains [RBDs]) elicits more broadly cross-reactive antibodies than homotypic SARS-CoV-2 RBD-only nanoparticles and protects against sarbecoviruses.
Closing excerpt
These results inform OAS mechanisms and support using mosaic-8b to protect COVID-19-vaccinated/infected humans against as-yet-unknown SARS-CoV-2 variants and animal sarbecoviruses with human spillover potential.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (152 words)

Immunization with mosaic-8b (nanoparticles presenting 8 SARS-like betacoronavirus [sarbecovirus] receptor-binding domains [RBDs]) elicits more broadly cross-reactive antibodies than homotypic SARS-CoV-2 RBD-only nanoparticles and protects against sarbecoviruses. To investigate original antigenic sin (OAS) effects on mosaic-8b efficacy, we evaluated the effects of prior COVID-19 vaccinations in non-human primates and mice on anti-sarbecovirus responses elicited by mosaic-8b, admix-8b (8 homotypics), or homotypic SARS-CoV-2 immunizations, finding the greatest cross-reactivity for mosaic-8b. As demonstrated by molecular fate mapping, in which antibodies from specific cohorts of B cells are differentially detected, B cells primed by WA1 spike mRNA-LNP dominated antibody responses after RBD-nanoparticle boosting. While mosaic-8b- and homotypic-nanoparticles boosted cross-reactive antibodies, de novo antibodies were predominantly induced by mosaic-8b, and these were specific for variant RBDs with increased identity to RBDs on mosaic-8b. These results inform OAS mechanisms and support using mosaic-8b to protect COVID-19-vaccinated/infected humans against as-yet-unknown SARS-CoV-2 variants and animal sarbecoviruses with human spillover potential.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 39197450 · DOI · PMC11460329

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Why must T cells be cross-reactive? [5]
    Sewell AK · Nat Rev Immunol · 2012 · cited 463 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction [6]
    Segal Y, Shoenfeld Y · Cell Mol Immunol · 2018 · cited 330 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Current understanding of cross-reactivity of food allergens and pollen [7]
    Vieths S, Scheurer S, Ballmer-Weber B · Ann N Y Acad Sci · 2002 · cited 283 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review [8]
    Kaur S, White S, Bartold PM · J Dent Res · 2013 · cited 194 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Cross-reactivity in β-Lactam Allergy [9]
    Zagursky RJ, Pichichero ME · J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract · 2018 · cited 152 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Position paper of the EAACI: food allergy due to immunological cross-reactions with common inhalant allergens [10]
    Werfel T, Asero R, Ballmer-Weber BK, Beyer K, Enrique E, Knulst AC, et al. · Allergy · 2015 · cited 132 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Keeton R, Tincho MB, Ngomti A, Baguma R, Benede N, Suzuki A, et al.. T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike cross-recognize Omicron. . 2022. PMID 35102311 · DOI · PMC8930768
  2. Kundu R, Narean JS, Wang L, Fenn J, Pillay T, Fernandez ND, et al.. Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts. . 2022. PMID 35013199 · DOI · PMC8748880
  3. Swanstrom JA, Plante JA, Plante KS, Young EF, McGowan E, Gallichotte EN, et al.. Dengue Virus Envelope Dimer Epitope Monoclonal Antibodies Isolated from Dengue Patients Are Protective against Zika Virus. . 2016. PMID 27435464 · DOI · PMC4958264
  4. Cohen AA, Keeffe JR, Schiepers A, Dross SE, Greaney AJ, Rorick AV, et al.. Mosaic sarbecovirus nanoparticles elicit cross-reactive responses in pre-vaccinated animals. . 2024. PMID 39197450 · DOI · PMC11460329
  5. Sewell AK. Why must T cells be cross-reactive?. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012. PMID 22918468 · DOI · PMC7097784
  6. Segal Y, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction. Cell Mol Immunol. 2018. PMID 29503439 · DOI · PMC6078966
  7. Vieths S, Scheurer S, Ballmer-Weber B. Current understanding of cross-reactivity of food allergens and pollen. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002. PMID 12023194 · DOI
  8. Kaur S, White S, Bartold PM. Periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2013. PMID 23525531 · DOI
  9. Zagursky RJ, Pichichero ME. Cross-reactivity in β-Lactam Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018. PMID 29017833 · DOI
  10. Werfel T, Asero R, Ballmer-Weber BK, Beyer K, Enrique E, Knulst AC, et al.. Position paper of the EAACI: food allergy due to immunological cross-reactions with common inhalant allergens. Allergy. 2015. PMID 26095197 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • HypersensitivityImmunology
  • AnaphylaxisImmunology
  • Cross ProtectionImmunology
  • Transfusion ReactionImmunology
  • Acrosome ReactionAnatomy and Physiology
  • Polymerase Chain ReactionGenetics and Genomics

All 90 articles in Immunology →

At a glance

39,902
PubMed records on this heading
6%
published since 2020
2,361
review articles
161
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • HypersensitivityImmunology
  • AnaphylaxisImmunology
  • Cross ProtectionImmunology
  • Transfusion ReactionImmunology
  • Acrosome ReactionAnatomy and Physiology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support