[hcknwscommenter]

your link only reports on primary and secondary dengue. There is no analysis of how long of a gap there was between primary and secondary, and whether that length of time matters. I don't see any evidence whatsoever in that link of a "long-lasting" original antigenic sin.

[angelzen]

From the paper I originally linked: "Infection with one serotype likely elicits lifelong immunity to that serotype, but generally not against the other three." Dengue researchers routinely talk about lifelong original antigenic sin effects in dengue. You seem to want to split hairs and ask instead "but which papers specifically established the duration of the original antigenic sin in dengue". I can't help you with that beyond linking to the seminal Halstead 1983 paper. From there on you are on your own.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6824120/

[hcknwscommenter]

I'm not splitting hairs at all. The point that infection with one serotype elicits lifelong immunity to that serotype only, is not original antigenic sin (OAS) at all, much less lifelong OAS. To make sure we are discussing the same thing, OAS (to me) refers to the effect that infection with (or vaccination against) one serotype makes it difficult/impossible to obtain any useful immunity to a second serotype. Lifelong, means that this effect is very long-lasting (years). If dengue researchers routinely talk about such, then you should be able to produce one paper that demonstrates it. Certainly Halstead does not although it contains an interesting reference to and discussion of the earlier work by Eisen, suggesting OAS lasting 7 months in rabbits. However, my larger point is this: a strong enough OAS effect to actually blunt vaccine effectiveness is rare. In fact, other than Dengue and RSV, have we really every seen proof of it at all, never mind whether it is long-lasting? For example, Influenza vaccines infections do show a slight OAS effect, but vaccination still works very well.