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.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 26,307 |
| 2000-2009 | 5,741 |
| 2010-2019 | 5,409 |
| 2020 onward | 2,445 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 2,361 | 5.9% |
| Meta-analyses | 18 | 0.0% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 161 | 0.4% |
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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike cross-recognize Omicron | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 537 | cc by PMID 35102311 · DOI · PMC8930768 |
| Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 298 | cc by PMID 35013199 · DOI · PMC8748880 |
| Dengue Virus Envelope Dimer Epitope Monoclonal Antibodies Isolated from Dengue Patients Are Protective against Zika Virus | 2016 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 196 | cc by PMID 27435464 · DOI · PMC4958264 |
| Mosaic sarbecovirus nanoparticles elicit cross-reactive responses in pre-vaccinated animals | 2024 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 55 | cc by PMID 39197450 · DOI · PMC11460329 |
T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike cross-recognize Omicron [1]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- Research article Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction [6]
- Research article Current understanding of cross-reactivity of food allergens and pollen [7]
- Research article Periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review [8]
- Research article Cross-reactivity in β-Lactam Allergy [9]
- Research article Position paper of the EAACI: food allergy due to immunological cross-reactions with common inhalant allergens [10]
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Sewell AK. Why must T cells be cross-reactive?. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012. PMID 22918468 · DOI · PMC7097784
- Segal Y, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction. Cell Mol Immunol. 2018. PMID 29503439 · DOI · PMC6078966
- 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
- Kaur S, White S, Bartold PM. Periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2013. PMID 23525531 · DOI
- Zagursky RJ, Pichichero ME. Cross-reactivity in β-Lactam Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018. PMID 29017833 · DOI
- 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.