Katarzyna Bilinska1, Patrycja Jakubowska1, Christopher S Von Bartheld2, Rafal Butowt1. 1. Department of Molecular Cell Genetics, L. Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, uI. Curie Sklodowskiej 9, 85-94 Bydgoszcz, Poland. 2. Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, Reno, Nevada 89557, United States.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that there is a loss of smell in many patients, including in infected but otherwise asymptomatic individuals. The underlying mechanisms for the olfactory symptoms are unclear. Using a mouse model, we determined whether cells in the olfactory epithelium express the obligatory receptors for entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by using RNAseq, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, Western blot, and immunocytochemistry. We show that the cell surface protein ACE2 and the protease TMPRSS2 are expressed in sustentacular cells of the olfactory epithelium but not, or much less, in most olfactory receptor neurons. These data suggest that sustentacular cells are involved in SARS-CoV-2 virus entry and impairment of the sense of smell in COVID-19 patients. We also show that expression of the entry proteins increases in animals of old age. This may explain, if true also in humans, why individuals of older age are more susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that there is a loss of smell in many patients, including in infected but otherwise asymptomatic individuals. The underlying mechanisms for the olfactory symptoms are unclear. Using a mouse model, we determined whether cells in the olfactory epithelium express the obligatory receptors for entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by using RNAseq, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, Western blot, and immunocytochemistry. We show that the cell surface protein ACE2 and the protease TMPRSS2 are expressed in sustentacular cells of the olfactory epithelium but not, or much less, in most olfactory receptor neurons. These data suggest that sustentacular cells are involved in SARS-CoV-2 virus entry and impairment of the sense of smell in COVID-19patients. We also show that expression of the entry proteins increases in animals of old age. This may explain, if true also in humans, why individuals of older age are more susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Recent reports indicate that partial loss of the sense of smell or even total anosmia are
early markers of SARS-CoV-2 infection.[1,2] However, the cellular mechanisms of this phenomenon are unknown.
Transient impairment of olfaction may be caused by two different types of processes:
inflammation in the olfactory epithelium or damage to the olfactory receptor neurons. The
latter possibility should be considered because SARS-CoV virus can infect olfactory neurons,
followed by axonal transport of the virus to the brain in transgenic mice expressing humanACE2 protein.[3]If the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus indeed gains access to the olfactory pathway, with the
potential of subsequent brain infection,[4,5] then one would expect that cells in the olfactory epithelium
express proteins that facilitate SARS-CoV-2 virus entry. This is currently not known but
could be relevant for efforts to identify tissues that have a large viral load and are more
sensitive for virus detection in infected but asymptomatic individuals.[6]
It is known that SARS-CoV-2 virus invades human cells via the obligatory receptor,
angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), and that viral uptake is further facilitated by a
priming protease, TMPRSS2.[7,8] Cells with high ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression have strong virus binding
capacity and are particularly susceptible to infection.[9] Identifying the
relevant cell types is essential to determine the mechanism of hyposmia and anosmiaobserved
in a significant fraction of COVID-19patients and in otherwise asymptomatic carriers, as we
have previously emphasized.[6]While large-scale transcriptome studies have examined gene expression in the olfactory
epithelium of various species, it is currently controversial whether neuronal or
non-neuronal cells in the olfactory epithelium express the obligatory receptors, ACE2 and
TMPRSS2, and whether expression levels differ with age.[10−19] By using RNAseq, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, Western
blot, and immunocytochemistry in a murine olfactory model system, we here identify
sustentacular cells as the cell type with high expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2, thus
indicating that these cells may be targeted by SARS-CoV-2 virus in the human olfactory
epithelium. Because sustentacular cells play key roles in supporting olfactory neuron
metabolism and odor sensing,[20] we propose that damage caused by the
SARS-CoV-2 virus to sustentacular cells may lead to the olfactory deficits observed in
COVID-19patients.Most of the data available from previous transcriptome experiments for murine and human
olfactory epithelium (OE) indicate that both genes, ACE2 and TMPRSS2, are expressed in the
OE. However, one microarray study did not find ACE2 expressed in the OE.[10] Several studies report that ACE2 expression is likely in non-neuronal cells rather than
in olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs),[12−14] based on very
low or lack of ACE2 expression in isolated mature ORNs yet positive expression in whole OE,
but again one microarray study did not find ACE2 enriched in non-neuronal cells of the
OE.[11] Technical factors could contribute to these discrepancies,[21] since RNAseq data can only provide predictions that require independent
experimental validation.[15] Our own data obtained by RNAseq expression
profiling shows ACE2 expression within the OE in young and aged mice without major changes
in expression during aging (Table ; GEO accession
GSE147771).
Table 1
RNAseq Expression Profile for ACE2 and TMPRSS2 (Normalized Estimation of
Expression, in FPKM Units) in Olfactory Epithelium (OE) for 2 Month Old (2MO) and 2 Year
Old Mice (2YO)a
gene
2MO (FPKM)
2YO (FPKM)
fold change
P value
ACE2
0.963
0.918
–0.07
0.865
TMPRSS2
35.101
46.103
0.39
0.038
Expression profiling from adult to aged animals shows similar levels for ACE2
(p > 0.05) but a significant increase for TMPRSS2
(p < 0.05). Data are based on three independent libraries
prepared from OE of three male mice for each age (GEO accession GSE147771). FPKM:
fragments per kilobase of transcripts per million mapped reads.
Expression profiling from adult to aged animals shows similar levels for ACE2
(p > 0.05) but a significant increase for TMPRSS2
(p < 0.05). Data are based on three independent libraries
prepared from OE of three male mice for each age (GEO accession GSE147771). FPKM:
fragments per kilobase of transcripts per million mapped reads.Analysis of previous RNAseq data indicate neuronal and non-neuronal expression of TMPRSS2
in the OE,[12,13] except
for one study which did not find TMPRSS2 expressed in OE.[14] The levels of
TMPRSS2 expression in non-neuronal OE cells seem to be higher than that in
ORNs,[10,13] but
different subpopulations of mature ORNs appear to differ in their levels of TMPRSS2;[13] such a mosaic expression pattern is not typical for the majority of other
ORN genes. Our own RNAseq profiling in murine OE readily detected expression of TMPRSS2, and
its levels were higher as compared to ACE2 (GEO accession number GSE147771). TMPRSS2
expression increased with old age (Table ).In summary, our RNAseq and other available expression profiling data for murine OE indicate
that ACE2 is mainly expressed in non-neuronal cells and TMPRSS2 is widely expressed in both
neuronal and non-neuronal cells, likely with higher expression levels in non-neuronal
cells.[17] Since gene expression in murine and human OE is highly
conserved,[14] these results suggest that non-neuronal cells rather than
ORNs in the human OE are the most likely site of SARS-CoV-2 virus entry to the olfactory
epithelium.Since transcriptome data should be validated by additional gene and protein expression
studies,[15,18,21] we next used RT-PCR to examine gene expression. Our analysis of
expression performed by real-time RT-PCR showed a slight decrease of ACE2 in the OE in
juvenile mice, while levels of expression subsequently remained constant during aging (Figure A). Because of recent reports discussing the
possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the brain,[4,5] we also examined gene expression in the brain. Expression of
ACE2 was significantly lower in the brain as compared to OE, and low levels in the olfactory
bulb and frontal cortex did not change with age (Figure B, C). TMPRSS2 expression in the OE increased from young adult to old age mice
(Figure D), and this is consistent with our
RNAseq data (Table ). To validate our real-time
RT-PCR approach, we examined expression of another protease, TMPRSS4, which is also known to
be expressed in non-neuronal cells, as is the case for TMPRSS2.[12,14] Expression of TMPRSS4 has an opposite
trend in OE with age (decreasing, Figure G) as
compared to TMPRSS2 (increasing in the OE with old age) (Figure D).
Figure 1
Gene expression analysis by RT-PCR for ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in murine olfactory epithelium
(OE), olfactory bulb (OB), and frontal cortex (FC) at different ages. Relative
expression levels were normalized to expression in 2 month old OE (100%) using GAPDH as
housekeeping gene. Similar results were obtained with β-actin as the housekeeping
gene. (A) Relative expression of ACE2 in OE decreases from juvenile 1 month old (1MO) to
2 month old (2MO), but it is stable in 2 year old (2YO). (B, C) ACE2 levels observed in
OB and FC are lower as compared to OE and stable during aging. Note that OE has higher
expression level than OB and FC at each stage analyzed. (D) For TMPRSS2, much higher
expression was detected in OE as compared to OB (E) and FC (F). Note that with aging the
level of TMPRSS2 increases significantly in OE but not in OB or FC. (G) Expression of
another protease, TMPRSS4, in OE significantly decreases during aging. (H) Lower
expression of ACE2 was noted in OE of female as compared to male 2 month old mice. (I)
TMPRSS2 expression in OE did not show gender-specific differences. All graphs give the
mean values, and error bars represent ± SEM. *P ≤ 0.01,
**P ≤ 0.005, ***P ≤ 0.001.
Gene expression analysis by RT-PCR for ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in murine olfactory epithelium
(OE), olfactory bulb (OB), and frontal cortex (FC) at different ages. Relative
expression levels were normalized to expression in 2 month old OE (100%) using GAPDH as
housekeeping gene. Similar results were obtained with β-actin as the housekeeping
gene. (A) Relative expression of ACE2 in OE decreases from juvenile 1 month old (1MO) to
2 month old (2MO), but it is stable in 2 year old (2YO). (B, C) ACE2 levels observed in
OB and FC are lower as compared to OE and stable during aging. Note that OE has higher
expression level than OB and FC at each stage analyzed. (D) For TMPRSS2, much higher
expression was detected in OE as compared to OB (E) and FC (F). Note that with aging the
level of TMPRSS2 increases significantly in OE but not in OB or FC. (G) Expression of
another protease, TMPRSS4, in OE significantly decreases during aging. (H) Lower
expression of ACE2 was noted in OE of female as compared to male 2 month old mice. (I)
TMPRSS2 expression in OE did not show gender-specific differences. All graphs give the
mean values, and error bars represent ± SEM. *P ≤ 0.01,
**P ≤ 0.005, ***P ≤ 0.001.Comparison of adult male and female mice showed lower levels of ACE2 expression in the OE
of females (Figure H) but not in the olfactory
bulb or in frontal cortex (data not shown). TMPRSS2 was expressed in the OE at similar
levels in male and female mice (Figure I). Taken
together, our data indicate that ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression is much higher in the OE than
in brain and that the aging process does not significantly affect the levels of ACE2
transcripts; however, TMPRSS2 transcript levels increase in old age.Since protein content does not always correlate with gene expression, we examined
expression of ACE2 at the protein level by comparing protein content in the OE of young and
old mice in Western blots. ACE2 protein increased with age in the OE but not in the
olfactory bulb or the frontal cortex (Figure ).
Similar data were obtained with two different antibodies. Slightly different electrophoretic
mobility of ACE2 bands in younger and older OE may be due to differential glycosylation or
other differences in post-translational modifications and requires further examination. Our
data suggest that the OE of older mice (and, if true for humans, also older humans) may be
more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection than younger ages.
Figure 2
Detection of ACE2 protein in tissue lysate by Western blot. (A) One or more bands just
above 100 kDa are visible which are more intense in aged olfactory epithelium (OE) (2YO)
than in 2 month old (2MO). In contrast, in olfactory bulb (OB) and frontal cortex (FC),
ACE2 bands are weaker and decrease with age. GAPDH verifies similar loading per lane.
(B) Quantification of the relative band intensity shows significant increase of ACE2 in
aged OE but not in aged OB and cortex (CT). Intensity of ACE2 band for 2MO FC was set at
100%. Graphs give the mean values, and error bars represent ± SEM.
*P ≤ 0.01.
Detection of ACE2 protein in tissue lysate by Western blot. (A) One or more bands just
above 100 kDa are visible which are more intense in aged olfactory epithelium (OE) (2YO)
than in 2 month old (2MO). In contrast, in olfactory bulb (OB) and frontal cortex (FC),
ACE2 bands are weaker and decrease with age. GAPDH verifies similar loading per lane.
(B) Quantification of the relative band intensity shows significant increase of ACE2 in
aged OE but not in aged OB and cortex (CT). Intensity of ACE2 band for 2MO FC was set at
100%. Graphs give the mean values, and error bars represent ± SEM.
*P ≤ 0.01.Our analysis of RNAseq and RT-PCR data as well as transcriptome expression data available
from databases and the literature strongly suggest that TMPRSS2 is expressed in multiple
cell types in the OE, while ACE2 is mainly or exclusively expressed in non-neuronal cells.
Since both entry proteins are thought to be required for SARS-CoV-2infection,[7,8] it is
important to establish the identity of these non-neuronal cells. We used immunocytochemistry
to localize ACE2 protein. As predicted by gene expression studies, the fluorescence signal
from deeper layers of the OE was relatively low, while the highest intensity of label was
found at the luminal side immediately adjacent to the nasal cavity (Figure
A–C and D–F, respectively). This location
contains the dendrites of ORNs as well as cell bodies of the sustentacular cells.
Figure 3
Cross sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) (A–F), respiratory
epithelium (RE) (G–I), and olfactory bulb (OB) (J–L) probed with an
anti-ACE2 antibody; nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258 (B, E, H, K). A thin layer of
labeling is visible at the luminal surface of the OE (A, D). Higher magnification shows
labeling just above the layer of sustentacular cell nuclei (D–F), while the
olfactory knobs and cilia (red arrows) do not contain ACE2, and neither do the olfactory
receptor neurons (ORN, asterisks in D and F). (C, F) Merging of the images from (A) and
(B) as well as (D) and (E) reveals that the cell bodies of the sustentacular cells (SC)
contain most of the ACE2 label. ACE2 label was weaker in the RE of the nasal cavity
(G–I). In the OB, ACE2 antibodies labeled some mitral cells, including their
proximal dendrites (J–L, arrows). Control sections probed without primary
antibodies or with control rabbit IgG had no detectable signal (not shown). Other
abbreviations: NC, nasal cavity; MCL, mitral cell layer; EPL, external plexiform layer;
GL, glomerular layer. Scale bars: 20 μm (A-C, G–I), 10 μm
(D–F), and 25 μm (J–L).
Cross sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) (A–F), respiratory
epithelium (RE) (G–I), and olfactory bulb (OB) (J–L) probed with an
anti-ACE2 antibody; nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258 (B, E, H, K). A thin layer of
labeling is visible at the luminal surface of the OE (A, D). Higher magnification shows
labeling just above the layer of sustentacular cell nuclei (D–F), while the
olfactory knobs and cilia (red arrows) do not contain ACE2, and neither do the olfactory
receptor neurons (ORN, asterisks in D and F). (C, F) Merging of the images from (A) and
(B) as well as (D) and (E) reveals that the cell bodies of the sustentacular cells (SC)
contain most of the ACE2 label. ACE2 label was weaker in the RE of the nasal cavity
(G–I). In the OB, ACE2 antibodies labeled some mitral cells, including their
proximal dendrites (J–L, arrows). Control sections probed without primary
antibodies or with control rabbit IgG had no detectable signal (not shown). Other
abbreviations: NC, nasal cavity; MCL, mitral cell layer; EPL, external plexiform layer;
GL, glomerular layer. Scale bars: 20 μm (A-C, G–I), 10 μm
(D–F), and 25 μm (J–L).Our single-labeling experiments suggest that sustentacular cells contain most of the ACE2
protein in the OE, consistent with RNAseq data showing that neuronal expression of ACE2 is
unlikely. The non-neuronal expression of ACE2 is not surprising, since transcriptome data
for cerebral cortex indicated that ACE2 was expressed mostly by endothelial cells and
astrocytes, but not by neurons.[22] However, others reported that ACE2 is
also distributed in the cytoplasm of neuronal cell bodies.[23,24]In order to clarify whether ACE2 protein is present in dendrites and cilia of olfactory
receptor neurons (ORNs), we performed double labeling experiments with a marker for mature
ORNs, olfactory marker protein (OMP). Double labeling shows that the majority of ACE2 signal
is located within the layer of sustentacular cells, adjacent to the OMP signal, just below
the heavily OMP-labeled ORN knobs and cilia protruding into the nasal cavity (Figure A, B, D and E, F, H). Although it is possible
that rare microvillar cells also express ACE2, we conclude that, in the OE, ACE2 protein is
located mainly in the sustentacular cells but not in the ORN cilia. This finding is
significant, because sustentacular cells are exposed to a hostile external environment and
thus they are accessible to airborne pathogens including viruses. Sustentacular cells
support ORN function by releasing odor-binding proteins and endocytosing olfactory binding
protein–odorant complexes[25] and therefore may compromise olfaction
when infected by viruses. In the olfactory bulb, ACE2 was localized mostly in mitral cells,
and no or very low signal was detected in glomeruli or periglomerular interneurons (Figure I–L). Intriguingly, some dendritic
localization of ACE2 was visible in mitral cells (Figure I, L). This suggests that some distinct neuronal populations in the brain may
contain ACE2, as was earlier observed by others.[22,23]
Figure 4
Representative cross sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) in the center of
the nasal cavity (NC) probed with antibodies against ACE2 (red channel) and against
olfactory marker protein (OMP) (green channel). ACE2 immunoreactivity was located just
below the luminal surface (A, D; arrows), between the OMP-labeled olfactory receptor
knobs and cilia (arrowhead) and the layer of the olfactory receptor neurons (ORN)
(A–D). At higher magnification, it is apparent that OMP-labeled ORN dendrites
(arrows in H) penetrate the layer of ACE2-labeled sustentacular cells (SC), while the
knobs and cilia (KC) of the ORNs at the luminal surface only contain OMP but not ACE2
(E–H). The border between the KC and the SC layers is shown clearly in the merged
image (H). In the olfactory bulb (OB), ACE2 label is mainly in some mitral neurons
(arrow), while glomeruli (GL) and the olfactory nerve layer at the top of OB are not
labeled (I, L). Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258. ORN, olfactory receptor neurons;
MCL, mitral cell layer; EPL, external plexiform layer; GL, glomerular layer; OL,
olfactory nerve layer. All scale bars: 20 μm.
Representative cross sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) in the center of
the nasal cavity (NC) probed with antibodies against ACE2 (red channel) and against
olfactory marker protein (OMP) (green channel). ACE2 immunoreactivity was located just
below the luminal surface (A, D; arrows), between the OMP-labeled olfactory receptor
knobs and cilia (arrowhead) and the layer of the olfactory receptor neurons (ORN)
(A–D). At higher magnification, it is apparent that OMP-labeled ORN dendrites
(arrows in H) penetrate the layer of ACE2-labeled sustentacular cells (SC), while the
knobs and cilia (KC) of the ORNs at the luminal surface only contain OMP but not ACE2
(E–H). The border between the KC and the SC layers is shown clearly in the merged
image (H). In the olfactory bulb (OB), ACE2 label is mainly in some mitral neurons
(arrow), while glomeruli (GL) and the olfactory nerve layer at the top of OB are not
labeled (I, L). Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258. ORN, olfactory receptor neurons;
MCL, mitral cell layer; EPL, external plexiform layer; GL, glomerular layer; OL,
olfactory nerve layer. All scale bars: 20 μm.Recent RNAseq studies of respiratory epithelium in the human nasal cavity did not detect
clear ACE2 signals,[16,26]
while single cell RNAseq in human respiratory epithelium did show ACE2 expression.[17] We detected ACE2 protein in the respiratory epithelium of the nasal cavity,
however, with a lower signal intensity as compared to the sustentacular cell layer of the OE
(Figure E).
Figure 5
Sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) probed with antibodies against ACE2
(21115-1-AP, green channel) and Hsp25 (red channel) and with in situ hybridization for
TMPRSS2 in a P21 mouse. ACE2 immunoreactivity is visible mainly at the luminal surface
of the OE (A, arrow) where Hsp25 antibodies label sustentacular cells (B, arrow). Nuclei
were stained with Hoechst 33258 (C, I). Merging of ACE2 and Hsp25 signal shows that the
two fluorescence signals largely overlap (D, arrow). Section stained at the border
between the respiratory epithelium (RE) and olfactory epithelium (OE) reveals much
stronger labeling of the OE (arrowhead) as compared to the RE (E). ACE2 labeling using
chromogenic DAB-based visualization shows the same localization at the OE surface (F).
Hsp25 shows the same localization but much stronger label (G). In situ hybridization for
TMPRSS2 produces a label in the sustentacular cells (SC) but very little or no label in
the mature olfactory receptor neurons (ORN) and a label in only a few cells of the
deeper layers of OE where immature olfactory neurons are located (asterisk, H). The same
section is stained with Hoechst to show the nuclei (I), and an adjacent section is the
sense control (J). NC, nasal cavity. All scale bars: 20 μm.
Sections through the olfactory epithelium (OE) probed with antibodies against ACE2
(21115-1-AP, green channel) and Hsp25 (red channel) and with in situ hybridization for
TMPRSS2 in a P21 mouse. ACE2 immunoreactivity is visible mainly at the luminal surface
of the OE (A, arrow) where Hsp25 antibodies label sustentacular cells (B, arrow). Nuclei
were stained with Hoechst 33258 (C, I). Merging of ACE2 and Hsp25 signal shows that the
two fluorescence signals largely overlap (D, arrow). Section stained at the border
between the respiratory epithelium (RE) and olfactory epithelium (OE) reveals much
stronger labeling of the OE (arrowhead) as compared to the RE (E). ACE2 labeling using
chromogenic DAB-based visualization shows the same localization at the OE surface (F).
Hsp25 shows the same localization but much stronger label (G). In situ hybridization for
TMPRSS2 produces a label in the sustentacular cells (SC) but very little or no label in
the mature olfactory receptor neurons (ORN) and a label in only a few cells of the
deeper layers of OE where immature olfactory neurons are located (asterisk, H). The same
section is stained with Hoechst to show the nuclei (I), and an adjacent section is the
sense control (J). NC, nasal cavity. All scale bars: 20 μm.To localize TMPRSS2 expression in the OE, we used in situ hybridization, because available
antibodies produced high background label. As shown in Figure H–J, TMPRSS2 transcripts were present in the sustentacular
cells and also in deeper layers of the OE, which includes immature ORNs and stem cells, but
label was low or nonexistent in mature ORNs. This localization clarifies previous
controversies about TMPRSS2 expression in the OE,[10−12,14,18] by confirming low expression in
mature ORNs.[18] TMPRSS2 expression in deeper layers of the OE is
consistent with some of the RNAseq studies.[10,11,18]In summary, our mouse model shows that, with older age, amounts of ACE2 protein increase in
the OE, as does gene expression of TMPRSS2, the two SARS-CoV-2 host receptors. This may
explain why animals (and humans) are more susceptible to COVID-19infection when they reach
old age.[27] In mice, we have identified the sustentacular cells as the
cell type in the OE which expresses both SARS-CoV-2 host receptors required for cell entry.
Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 virus accumulates in sustentacular cells first and, by
interfering with their metabolism, affects the function of olfactory receptor neurons. The
damage to these cells caused by the virus may impair smell sensation as is often observed in
COVID-19patients. Whether the virus may be transferred from sustentacular cells to
olfactory receptor neurons requires further studies. The dendrites of olfactory receptor
neurons are enwrapped by sustentacular cells, and such contacts may engage in
cross-communication by exosomes.[28] Herpes viruses can hijack host
exosomes to infect neighboring cells.[29] Therefore, further investigations
are needed to verify the sustentacular cells as a primary SARS-CoV-2 target in the human OE
and to examine whether the virus can pass from sustentacular cells to olfactory neurons with
a potential route to infect the brain. An additional important finding of our work is that
the murine OE contains a more intense accumulation of ACE2 protein than the respiratory
epithelium. If this is true for the human OE, then the OE (and specifically the
sustentacular cells) rather than the respiratory epithelium may be most susceptible to
SARS-CoV-2 infection, and for this reason it may be the most relevant source of tissues to
detect COVID-19infection in early stages and in asymptomatic carriers. This could reduce
the rate of false negative tests in early and in asymptomatic cases of COVID-19.
Methods
Animals and Tissue Processing
A total of 16 C57BL/6J mice (Jackson Laboratory) were used to obtain tissue material for
experiments. Mice were housed with a 12/12 h light/dark cycle and given access to water
and food ad libitum. All animal experiments were approved by the local ethics committee
for animal research at Bydgoszcz (Poland). Immediately after cervical dislocation, the
mice were exsanguinated and tissues were dissected. Olfactory epithelium and brain were
frozen at −80 °C for storage and further used or fixed 3 h at 4 °C in 4%
(w/v) paraformaldehyde in PBS (pH 7.4) and then incubated in 25% (w/v) sucrose/PBS at 4
°C for 16–24 h, frozen in Tissue-Tek O.C.T. (Sakura Finetek), and
cryosectioned at 10 μm.
RNAseq Gene Expression Profiling
PolyA mRNA was isolated using a Dynabeads purification kit (Thermo Scientific). Libraries
were constructed using standard Illumina protocol. Olfactory mucosa mRNA profiles of 2
month old and 2 year old wild-type male mice were generated by deep sequencing, in
triplicate, using the Illumina NovaSeq6000 system. To verify the quality of RNA-Seq data,
the 100 most abundant genes were taken from all samples and heat maps were generated to
observe the relation between samples/conditions. The sequence reads that passed the
quality filters were analyzed at the transcript isoform level with TopHat followed by
Cufflinks. Using our data analysis workflow, we mapped at least 30 million sequence reads
per sample to the mouse genome (build mm10) and identified 25 867 transcripts in
the olfactory epithelium of WT with the TopHat workflow. All raw data were submitted to
the GEO database (accession GSE147771).
Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction
Total RNA was extracted from frozen tissue samples using the Qiagen RNeasy plus mini kit
with on-column DNAase I digestion according to the manufacturer’s protocol. About 1
μg of total RNA was used for cDNA synthesis using the Maxima first strand cDNA
synthesis kit (Thermo Scientific). Real-time qPCR reactions were performed on a PikoReal
96 real-time PCR apparatus (Thermo Scientific) with 5× hot FIREPol EvaGreen qPCR mix
plus (Solis Biodyne). PCR primers were obtained through Harvard PrimerBank (https://pga.mgh.harvard.edu/primerbank/). The following primers were used for
relative gene expression quantification:Gene
expression was normalized to GAPDH or to β-actin, with similar results. Data were
analyzed by the comparative Ct method using the Ct values and the average value of PCR
efficiencies obtained from LinRegPCR software. Ct values obtained for GAPDH and actin were
in the range of 15–19 cycles, and Ct values obtained for ACE2, TMPRSS2, and TMPRSS4
were in the range of 22–32 cycles. Real-time PCR experiments were performed at
least in triplicate, and the results were analyzed using GraphPad Prism software and
unpaired two-tailed Student’s t test. Results are presented as
mean ± SEM.
Western Blotting
ACE2 protein in tissue homogenates was detected by Western blotting. Briefly, frozen
tissue was homogenized on ice in N-Per Total Protein Extraction reagent (Thermo
Scientific) with the addition of protease and phosphatase inhibitor cocktails
(Sigma-Aldrich). Homogenates were centrifuged at 20 000g at 4
°C, and supernatants were collected. Protein content was measured by BCA method
(Thermo Scientific). Equal amounts of total proteins were mixed with 4× Laemmli
sample buffer and boiled for 10 min at 80 °C. Protein extracts were separated on 8%
SDS-PAGE denaturing acrylamide gels using approximately 35 μg of total protein per
lane and then blotted to nitrocellulose membranes (0.45 μm, Amersham) using a
standard Tris-glycine wet method. Membranes were blocked with 5% dry milk (Bio-Rad),
incubated with anti-ACE2 (Proteintech #21115-1-AP or R&D Systems, #AF3437) at 1/1000
or anti-GAPDH (Proteintech #10494-1-AP) at 1/5000 dilution rabbit polyclonal antibodies
overnight at 4 °C, washed several times in TBST buffer (pH 8.0), and incubated for 60
min with secondary anti-rabbit-HRP antibody (Pierce). Signal was detected using Clarity
chemiluminescence substrate (Bio-Rad). Blots were repeated at least three times with
comparable results. Densitometric band analysis was performed by using Unscan-it software
(Silk Scientific, Inc.) on three independent blots using the GAPDH band for relative
comparisons.
Immunocytochemistry and Colocalization Analysis
For single immunofluorescence labeling, frozen sections cut at 10 μm were stained
overnight with primary anti-ACE2 (Proteintech 21115-1-AP) at 1/400 dilution and sections
were washed five times in PBST (0.05% Triton X-100) and incubated with secondary
anti-rabbit-AF488 antibody (Jackson) at 1/500 dilution. Next, sections were stained for 5
min at RT in Hoechst 33258 (Sigma-Aldrich) and embedded in antifade medium (Vector
laboratories). Alternatively, cryosections were stained with anti-ACE2 goat polyclonal Ab
at 1/500 (R&D Systems AF3437). Labeling with anti-HSP25/27 (Proteintech # 18284-1-AP)
was performed using serial sections on the same slide used for labeling with anti-ACE2.
The protocol was the same as that for single labeling, but dilution of the primary
anti-HSP25/27 antibody was 1/400. For double labeling, sections were probed overnight at 4
°C with antiACE2 at 1/400 and anti-OMP (Wako, #544-10001) at 1/500 dilution in PBST,
followed by five washes and incubation with mixture of anti-rabbit-AF594 and
anti-goat-AF488 at dilution 1/500 in PBST. After staining with Hoechst 33258, sections
were embedded in antifade medium. Immunocytochemistry for light microscopy was performed
using the ImmPRESS HRP reagent kit (Vector Laboratories, # MP-7401) following the
manufacturer’s protocol. Dilutions of primary anti-ACE2 and anti-HSP25/27
antibodies were the same as those used for immunofluorescence experiments. After
immunocytochemical reactions, sections were analyzed on a Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope and
images were taken using a Nikon DP80 camera. Microscopic images were processed using
CellSense software (Nikon corp).
In Situ Hybridization
Frozen tissue sections obtained from 21 day old mice were prehybridized, hybridized, and
washed as described previously.[30] Sense and antisense
digoxigenin-labeled cRNA probes specific for TMPRSS2 were generated by transcription
in vitro using murineTMPRSS2 cDNA fragment (NCBI reference NM_01577.2)
located between 5′-GAGGAAAGCCTGGTATCCCG-3′ (F) and
5′-AAATGCCGTCCAGTACCTCG-3′ (R) and subcloned into pGEM-T easy plasmid
(Promega). SP6 and T7 RNA polymerases (Roche) and Dig-labeled ribonucleotide mix (Roche)
were used according to the manufacturer’s protocol. To increase tissue penetration,
the final probe size was reduced by hydrolysis in sodium carbonate to approximately
250–300 nt. Sections were developed using anti-digoxigenin Fab fragments antibody
(Roche) and NBT/BCIP chromogenic alkaline phosphatase substrates in the presence of
endogenous alkaline phosphatase inhibitor.
Authors: Russell B Fletcher; Diya Das; Levi Gadye; Kelly N Street; Ariane Baudhuin; Allon Wagner; Michael B Cole; Quetzal Flores; Yoon Gi Choi; Nir Yosef; Elizabeth Purdom; Sandrine Dudoit; Davide Risso; John Ngai Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 24.633
Authors: Ye Zhang; Kenian Chen; Steven A Sloan; Mariko L Bennett; Anja R Scholze; Sean O'Keeffe; Hemali P Phatnani; Paolo Guarnieri; Christine Caneda; Nadine Ruderisch; Shuyun Deng; Shane A Liddelow; Chaolin Zhang; Richard Daneman; Tom Maniatis; Ben A Barres; Jian Qian Wu Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Luis R Saraiva; Ximena Ibarra-Soria; Mona Khan; Masayo Omura; Antonio Scialdone; Peter Mombaerts; John C Marioni; Darren W Logan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Markus Hoffmann; Hannah Kleine-Weber; Simon Schroeder; Nadine Krüger; Tanja Herrler; Sandra Erichsen; Tobias S Schiergens; Georg Herrler; Nai-Huei Wu; Andreas Nitsche; Marcel A Müller; Christian Drosten; Stefan Pöhlmann Journal: Cell Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Michael A Durante; Stefan Kurtenbach; Zoukaa B Sargi; J William Harbour; Rhea Choi; Sarah Kurtenbach; Garrett M Goss; Hiroaki Matsunami; Bradley J Goldstein Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Stanislav A Groppa; Dumitru Ciolac; Carolina Duarte; Christopher Garcia; Daniela Gasnaș; Pavel Leahu; Daniela Efremova; Alexandru Gasnaș; Tatiana Bălănuță; Daniela Mîrzac; Alexandru Movila Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2022 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: E Lin; J E Lantos; S B Strauss; C D Phillips; T R Campion; B B Navi; N S Parikh; A E Merkler; S Mir; C Zhang; H Kamel; M Cusick; P Goyal; A Gupta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Boscutti; G Delvecchio; A Pigoni; G Cereda; V Ciappolino; M Bellani; P Fusar-Poli; P Brambilla Journal: Brain Behav Immun Health Date: 2021-05-18