| Literature DB >> 25275464 |
Jennie Johnstone1, Robin Parsons2, Fernando Botelho2, Jamie Millar2, Shelly McNeil3, Tamas Fulop4, Janet McElhaney5, Melissa K Andrew6, Stephen D Walter1, P J Devereaux7, Mehrnoush Malekesmaeili8, Ryan R Brinkman9, James Mahony10, Jonathan Bramson11, Mark Loeb12.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if immune phenotypes associated with immunosenescence predict risk of respiratory viral infection in elderly nursing home residents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25275464 PMCID: PMC4183538 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Baseline characteristics of the nursing home elderly.
| Total n = 1072 | |
|
| |
| Age (years) | |
| 65–74 | 131 (12) |
| 75–84 | 337 (31) |
| 85–94 | 508 (47) |
| ≥95 | 96 (9) |
| Sex (F) | 776 (72) |
| Prior co-morbidity | |
| COPD | 186 (17) |
| Coronary artery disease | 346 (32) |
| Diabetes | 290 (27) |
| Heart failure | 148 (14) |
| Stroke | 273 (25) |
| Dementia | 511 (48) |
| ≥5 medications | 966 (90) |
| Frailty | |
| 4 | 76 (7) |
| 5 | 174 (16) |
| 6 | 354 (33) |
| 7 | 460 (43) |
| 8 | 8 (1) |
|
| |
| CD8+ T-cell | |
| Naïve CD8+ T-cell% | 1.10 (0.60–1.82) |
| Terminally differentiated CD8+ T-cell% | 8.95 (4.72–14.80) |
| Senescent CD8+ T-cell% | 5.87 (2.40–11.58) |
| CD8+ CMV T-cell% | 0.32 (.03–1.53) |
| CD4+ T-cell | |
| Naïve CD4+ T-cell% | 13.2 (6.90–22.85) |
| Terminally differentiated CD4+ T-cell% | 8.46 (4.93–14.04) |
| Senescent CD4+ T-cell% | 1.66 (0.28–4.54) |
| CD4+ CMV T-cell% | 0.06 (0.006–0.40) |
| T-reg | |
| T-reg% | 2.73 (2.12–3.45) |
Figure 1Gating strategy for T-cell phenotypes.
T cell phenotypes were defined using the flowDensity software package. Lymphocytes were first gated from non-margin events, and then singlets were gated. CD45RA thresholds were calculated based on singlet lymphocytes FMO. CD3+ cells were gated and then separated into CD4+CD8- and CD4-CD8+. Expression of CD57, CD28, CD45RA and CCR7 was analyzed on either CD4+CD8- or CD8-CD4+.
Figure 2Gating strategy of T-reg.
Lymphocytes and singlets were selected. Gates were then set up for CD3+ cells and CD4+. To identify the T-regs, a gate was set up to select CD25+CD127 lo/− and T-regs were defined as CD25+CD127 lo/− FOXP3+.
Figure 3Gating strategy for CMV-reactive T cells.
PBMC were stimulated with pp65 peptides to identify CMV-reactive T-cells. As a negative control, PBMC were stimulated with DMSO. Subsequently, the T-cells were stained for surface markers and intracellular cytokines. To define the CMV-reactive T-cells, the flow data was gated on singlet lymphocytes (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) and subsequently gated on CD3+CD8+ cells and CD3+CD4+. The plots show intracellular cytokine staining results for a single patient. CMV-reactive T-cells were defined as IFN-γ+ TNF-α+.
Respiratory viruses present in symptomatic elderly nursing home residents.
| Nasopharyngeal swabs positive for respiratory virus | |
| I | 21 (24) |
| Influenza A | 16 (18) |
| Influenza B | 5 (6) |
|
| 12 (14) |
| RSV A | 10 (11) |
| RSV B | 2 (2) |
|
| 28 (32) |
| Coronavirus OC43 | 15 (17) |
| Coronavirus NL63/229E | 9 (10) |
| Coronavirus HKU1 | 4 (5) |
|
| 15 (17) |
|
| 8 (9) |
|
| 4 (5) |
| Parainfluenza 1 | 3 (3) |
| Parainfluenza 2 | 1 (1) |
*One patient had mixed influenza A and rhinovirus.
Immune phenotype predictors of respiratory viral infection in univariable and multivariable analysis.
| HR (95% CI) Unadjusted | P-value | HR (95% CI) Final Model | P-value | |
|
| 0.99 (0.97–1.01) | 0.35 | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.30 |
|
| ||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||
| Female | 1.13 (0.65–1.98) | 0.66 | 1.03 (0.58–1.84) | 0.92 |
|
| ||||
| 4 | Reference | Reference | ||
| 5 | 1.44 (0.34–6.17) | 0.62 | 2.68 (0.58–12.47) | 0.21 |
| 6 | 1.99 (0.59–6.70) | 0.27 | 3.67 (1.06–12.67) | 0.04 |
| 7 or 8 | 1.41 (0.39–5.07) | 0.60 | 2.45 (0.55–10.86) | 0.24 |
|
| ||||
| Low naïve CD8+ T-cell% | 0.69 (0.51–0.95) | 0.02 | ||
| High terminally differentiated CD8+ T-cell% | 1.57 (1.10–2.24) | 0.01 | ||
| High senescent CD8+ T-cell% | 1.55 (1.11–2.17) | 0.01 | ||
| High CMV-reactive CD8+ T-cell% | 1.15 (0.65–2.03) | 0.64 | ||
|
| ||||
| Low naïve CD4+ T-cell% | 0.85 (0.61–1.18) | 0.33 | ||
| High terminally differentiated CD4+ T-cell% | 0.96 (0.60–1.55) | 0.88 | ||
| High senescent CD4+ T-cell% | 1.08 (0.71–1.64) | 0.73 | ||
| High CMV-reactive CD4+ T-cell% | 1.82 (1.13–2.94) | 0.01 | 1.69 (1.03–2.78) | 0.04 |
|
| ||||
| High T-reg% | 0.47 (0.26–0.85) | 0.01 | 0.41 (0.20–0.81) | 0.01 |
*Final model adjusted for age, sex, frailty, high T-reg% and high CMV-reactive CD4+ T-cell%.
Figure 4Time to respiratory viral infection stratified by a) T-reg%, adjusted for age, sex, frailty and CMV-reactive CD4+ T-cell%) and b) CMV-reactive CD4+ T-cell%, adjusted for age, sex, frailty and T-reg%.