A Chinese host genetic study discovered IFNs and causality of laboratory traits on COVID-19 severity

Effects of blood-processing protocols on cell-free DNA fragmentomics in plasma: Comparisons of one- and two-step centrifugations

BACKGROUND

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentomic characteristics are promising analytes with abundant physiological signals for non-invasive disease diagnosis and monitoring. Previous studies on plasma cfDNA fragmentomics commonly employed a two-step centrifugation process for removing cell debris, involving a low-speed centrifugation followed by a high-speed centrifugation. However, the effects of centrifugation conditions on the analysis of cfDNA fragmentome remain uncertain.

METHODS

We collected blood samples from 10 healthy individuals and divided each sample into two aliquots for plasma preparation with one- and two-step centrifugation processes. We performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) of the plasma cfDNA in the two groups and comprehensively compared the cfDNA fragmentomic features. Additionally, we reanalyzed the fragmentomic features of cfDNA from 16 healthy individuals and 16 COVID-19 patients, processed through one- and two-step centrifugation in our previous study, to investigate the impact of centrifugation on disease signals.

RESULTS

Our results showed that there were no significant differences observed in the characteristics of nuclear cfDNA, including size, motif diversity score (MDS) of end motifs, and genome distribution, between plasma samples treated with one- and two-step centrifugation. The cfDNA size shortening in COVID-19 patients was observed in plasma samples with one- and two-step centrifugation methods. However, we observed a significantly higher relative abundance and longer size of cell-free mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the one-step samples compared to the two-step samples. This difference in mtDNA caused by the one- and two-step centrifugation methods surpasses the pathological difference between COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that one-step low-speed centrifugation is a simple and potentially suitable method for analyzing nuclear cfDNA fragmentation characteristics. These results offer valuable guidance for cfDNA research in various clinical scenarios.

COVID-19 and the impact on Alzheimer's disease pathology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly escalated into a global pandemic that primarily affects older and immunocompromised individuals due to underlying clinical conditions and suppressed immune responses. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients exhibit a spectrum of neurological symptoms, indicating that COVID-19 can affect the brain in a variety of manners. Many studies, past and recent, suggest a connection between viral infections and an increased risk of neurodegeneration, raising concerns about the neurological effects of COVID-19 and the possibility that it may contribute to Alzheimer's disease (AD) onset or worsen already existing AD pathology through inflammatory processes given that both COVID-19 and AD share pathological features and risk factors. This leads us to question whether COVID-19 is a risk factor for AD and how these two conditions might influence each other. Considering the extensive reach of the COVID-19 pandemic and the devastating impact of the ongoing AD pandemic, their combined effects could have significant public health consequences worldwide.

Reconsideration of interferon treatment for viral diseases: Lessons from SARS, MERS, and COVID-19

Periodic pandemics of coronavirus (CoV)-related pneumonia have been a major challenging issue since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012. The ongoing pandemic of CoV disease (COVID-19) poses a substantial threat to public health. As for the treatment options, only limited antiviral agents have been approved hitherto, and clinicians mainly focus on currently available drugs including the conventional antiviral interferons (IFNs). In clinical practice, IFNs, when used either alone or in combination with ribavirin and/or lopinavir/ritonavir, have shown promising outcomes, to some extent, in SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV treatment. Although the efficacy and safety of IFNs in COVID-19 treatment remain unclear, their possible use merits further evaluation. We present a review that summarizes current evidence of IFN treatment for COVID-19 and elaborates on other challenges in terms of the timing of IFN treatment initiation, treatment duration, and IFN type to be used. The review findings suggested that IFN acts by directly inhibiting viral replication and activating immune cell subsets. However, there is a lack of well-designed and controlled clinical trials providing firm evidence for the efficacy or safety of IFN therapy for CoVs. Additionally, critically ill patients with multiple immunosuppression-associated comorbidities may not benefit from IFN therapy, necessitating screening of those patients who would most benefit from IFN treatment.

Host Genetic Factors, Comorbidities and the Risk of Severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was varied in disease symptoms. We aim to explore the effect of host genetic factors and comorbidities on severe COVID-19 risk.

METHODS

A total of 20,320 COVID-19 patients in the UK Biobank cohort were included. Genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) was used to identify host genetic factors in the progression of COVID-19 and a polygenic risk score (PRS) consisted of 86 SNPs was constructed to summarize genetic susceptibility. Colocalization analysis and Logistic regression model were used to assess the association of host genetic factors and comorbidities with COVID-19 severity. All cases were randomly split into training and validation set (1:1). Four algorithms were used to develop predictive models and predict COVID-19 severity. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities and PRS were included in the model to predict the risk of severe COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was applied to assess the models' performance.

RESULTS

We detected an association with rs73064425 at locus 3p21.31 reached the genome-wide level in GWAS (odds ratio: 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.36-1.78). Colocalization analysis found that two genes (SLC6A20 and LZTFL1) may affect the progression of COVID-19. In the predictive model, logistic regression models were selected due to simplicity and high performance. Predictive model consisting of demographic characteristics, comorbidities and genetic factors could precisely predict the patient's progression (AUROC = 82.1%, 95% CI 80.6-83.7%). Nearly 20% of severe COVID-19 events could be attributed to genetic risk.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we identified two 3p21.31 genes as genetic susceptibility loci in patients with severe COVID-19. The predictive model includes demographic characteristics, comorbidities and genetic factors is useful to identify individuals who are predisposed to develop subsequent critical conditions among COVID-19 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic and Alzheimer’s disease: mutual risks and mechanisms

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a life-threatening disease, especially in elderly individuals and those with comorbidities. The predominant clinical manifestation of COVID-19 is respiratory dysfunction, while neurological presentations are increasingly being recognized. SARS-CoV-2 invades host cells primarily via attachment of the spike protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor expressed on cell membranes. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and prone to severe clinical outcomes. Recent studies have revealed some common risk factors for AD and COVID-19. An understanding of the association between COVID-19 and AD and the potential related mechanisms may lead to the development of novel approaches to treating both diseases. In the present review, we first summarize the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system (CNS) and then discuss the associations and potential shared key factors between COVID-19 and AD, with a focus on the ACE2 receptor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype, age, and neuroinflammation.

The UK Biobank: A Shining Example of Genome-Wide Association Study Science with the Power to Detect the Murky Complications of Real-World Epidemiology

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have successfully identified thousands of genetic variants that are reliably associated with human traits. Although GWASs are restricted to certain variant frequencies, they have improved our understanding of the genetic architecture of complex traits and diseases. The UK Biobank (UKBB) has brought substantial analytical opportunity and performance to association studies. The dramatic expansion of many GWAS sample sizes afforded by the inclusion of UKBB data has improved the power of estimation of effect sizes but, critically, has done so in a context where phenotypic depth and precision enable outcome dissection and the application of epidemiological approaches. However, at the same time, the availability of such a large, well-curated, and deeply measured population-based collection has the capacity to increase our exposure to the many complications and inferential complexities associated with GWASs and other analyses. In this review, we discuss the impact that UKBB has had in the GWAS era, some of the opportunities that it brings, and exemplar challenges that illustrate the reality of using data from this world-leading resource.

Rare Variants in Inborn Errors of Immunity Genes Associated With Covid-19 Severity

Host genetic factors have been shown to play an important role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and the course of Covid-19 disease. The genetic contributions of common variants influencing Covid-19 susceptibility and severity have been extensively studied in diverse populations. However, the studies of rare genetic defects arising from inborn errors of immunity (IEI) are relatively few, especially in the Chinese population. To fill this gap, we used a deeply sequenced dataset of nearly 500 patients, all of Chinese descent, to investigate putative functional rare variants. Specifically, we annotated rare variants in our call set and selected likely deleterious missense (LDM) and high-confidence predicted loss-of-function (HC-pLoF) variants. Further, we analyzed LDM and HC-pLoF variants between non-severe and severe Covid-19 patients by (a) performing gene- and pathway-level association analyses, (b) testing the number of mutations in previously reported genes mapped from LDM and HC-pLoF variants, and (c) uncovering candidate genes via protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis of Covid-19-related genes and genes defined from LDM and HC-pLoF variants. From our analyses, we found that (a) pathways Tuberculosis (hsa:05152), Primary Immunodeficiency (hsa:05340), and Influenza A (hsa:05164) showed significant enrichment in severe patients compared to the non-severe ones, (b) HC-pLoF mutations were enriched in Covid-19-related genes in severe patients, and (c) several candidate genes, such as IL12RB1, TBK1, TLR3, and IFNGR2, are uncovered by PPI network analysis and worth further investigation. These regions generally play an essential role in regulating antiviral innate immunity responses to foreign pathogens and in responding to many inflammatory diseases. We believe that our identified candidate genes/pathways can be potentially used as Covid-19 diagnostic markers and help distinguish patients at higher risk.

Identifying factors contributing to increased susceptibility to COVID-19 risk: a systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies

Background

To summarize modifiable factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggested by Mendelian randomization studies.

Methods

In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, from inception to 15 November 2021, for Mendelian randomization studies in English. We selected studies that assessed associations of genetically predicted exposures with COVID-19-related outcomes (severity, hospitalization and susceptibility). Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated based on the consideration of the three main assumptions for instrumental variable analyses.

Results

We identified 700 studies through systematic search, of which 50 Mendelian randomization studies were included. Included studies have explored a wide range of socio-demographic factors, lifestyle attributes, anthropometrics and biomarkers, predisposition to diseases and druggable targets in COVID-19 risk. Mendelian randomization studies suggested that increases in smoking, obesity and inflammatory factors were associated with higher risk of COVID-19. Predisposition to ischaemic stroke, combined bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder, chronic kidney disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was potentially associated with higher COVID-19 risk. Druggable targets, such as higher protein expression of histo-blood group ABO system transferase (ABO), interleukin (IL)-6 and lower protein expression of 2′-5′ oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1) were associated with higher risk of COVID-19. There was no strong genetic evidence supporting the role of vitamin D, glycaemic traits and predisposition to cardiometabolic diseases in COVID-19 risk.

Conclusion

This review summarizes modifiable factors for intervention (e.g. smoking, obesity and inflammatory factors) and proteomic signatures (e.g. OAS1 and IL-6) that could help identify drugs for treating COVID-19.

Nature of Acquired Immune Responses, Epitope Specificity and Resultant Protection from SARS-CoV-2

The primary global response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been to bring to the clinic as rapidly as possible a number of vaccines that are predicted to enhance immunity to this viral infection. While the rapidity with which these vaccines have been developed and tested (at least for short-term efficacy and safety) is commendable, it should be acknowledged that this has occurred despite the lack of research into, and understanding of, the immune elements important for natural host protection against the virus, making this endeavor a somewhat unique one in medical history. In contrast, as pointed out in the review below, there were already important past observations that suggested that respiratory infections at mucosal surfaces were susceptible to immune clearance by mechanisms not typical of infections caused by systemic (blood-borne) pathogens. Accordingly, it was likely to be important to understand the role for both innate and acquired immunity in response to viral infection, as well as the optimum acquired immune resistance mechanisms for viral clearance (B cell or antibody-mediated, versus T cell mediated). This information was needed both to guide vaccine development and to monitor its success. We have known that many pathogens enter into a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the host, with each undergoing sequential change in response to alterations the other makes to its presence. The subsequent evolution of viral variants which has caused such widespread concern over the last 3-6 months as host immunity develops was an entirely predictable response. What is still not known is whether there will be other unexpected side-effects of the deployment of novel vaccines in humans which have yet to be characterized, and, if so, how and if these can be avoided. We conclude by remarking that to ignore a substantial body of well-attested immunological research in favour of expediency is a poor way to proceed.