Literature DB >> 33077340

Sex-biased Immune Responses Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Rebecca L Ursin1, Janna R Shapiro2, Sabra L Klein3.   

Abstract

Males are disproportionately affected by severe disease and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In their recent article, Takahashi et al. found sex differences in immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and the predictors of disease progression. These findings contribute to elucidating the mechanisms that underlie the male bias in severe disease and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; biological sex; immunopathogenesis

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33077340      PMCID: PMC7547628          DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2020.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Microbiol        ISSN: 0966-842X            Impact factor:   17.079


The world just crossed a grim milestone, with over 1 million deaths due to COVID-19. The USA alone just surpassed 200 000 deaths, with an additional 200 000 projected by the end of 2020i. While there are promising vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials, we desperately need to complement these initiatives with a deeper understanding of the immune responses that protect but that also cause pathology during SARS-CoV-2 infection. This goal is complicated by the fact that the virus does not impact everyone similarly, with age and comorbidities, such as obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions serving as risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection [1]. Biological sex is another factor influencing disease severity. SARS-CoV-2 causes significantly more hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) visits, and deaths in males than in females, across diverse countries and age groups. Globally, for every 10 hospitalizations of adult females there are 13 in males. And most strikingly, for every 10 deaths in females, there are 14 in malesii. It is important to note that both sex and gender contribute to disparities in COVID-19 outcomes; the former describing our biological predisposition (i.e., sex chromosome complement, sex steroid hormones, and reproductive tissues) and the latter referring to the social and behavioral characteristics (i.e., heath-seeking behaviors, mask wearing, and occupation) [1]. In their recent article, Takahashi et al. explore the immunopathogenic phenotypes exhibited by males and females in a cohort of 98 hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, as compared to a control group of uninfected healthcare workers (HCWs) [2]. The first study of 39 patients not admitted to the ICU was used to assess baseline immune parameters, while repeated sampling from the larger cohort was used to assess longitudinal differences. Analysis of 71 plasma cytokines and chemokines adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) revealed few differences between male and female patients. In unadjusted analysis, both male and female patients had higher frequencies of total and intermediate monocytes than healthy controls, while the proportion of nonclassical monocytes was higher in male than in female patients and HCWs of either sex. High frequencies of nonclassical monocytes in males were associated with lower T cell frequencies and were positively correlated with levels of CCL5, a chemokine important for recruiting T cells to inflammatory sites. Female patients had a higher proportion of activated (CD38+HLA-DR+) and terminally differentiated (PD-1+TIM-3+) T cells than female HCWs, particularly in the CD8+ T cell compartment. Clinical scores at repeated time points were used to classify patients as stabilized or deteriorated. Among males, a greater deterioration was positively correlated with age and BMI and negatively correlated with activated and terminally differentiated CD8+ T cells. Among females, disease progression was associated with the innate cytokines IL-15 and TNSF10 (TRAIL). The authors conclude that their findings demonstrate key sex differences in COVID-19 disease dynamics and provide a rationale for the pursuit of sex-specific strategies for prevention, care, and treatment of COVID-19. Focusing on genetic differences, one small case series identified loss-of-function variants of the pattern-recognition receptor Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) in male patients requiring mechanical ventilation [3]. Upon stimulation in vitro with imiquimod, a TLR7 agonist, peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from the patients showed no increase in TLR7 mRNA expression, decreased expression of transcripts in the type I interferon (IFN) pathway, and decreased production of IFN-γ, as compared to healthy controls. TLR7 is X-linked and is known to escape X-inactivation [4], suggesting a mechanism whereby men expressing a single copy of TLR7 are at increased risk of severe disease compared to women expressing two copies. This conclusion would also support the findings in the current paper, whereby greater T cell activation in females may result from greater induction of TLR7. A larger study performed shotgun RNA sequencing from nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 430 infected individuals and 54 controls [5]. Analysis revealed 19 genes where the sex difference in expression could be attributed to infection with SARS-CoV-2, including downregulation of B cell activity and natural killer cell-activating receptors in males, coupled with an upregulation of transcripts that inhibit NFκB signaling. A recent article reports that at least 10% of 987 patients with severe disease had neutralizing IgG autoantibodies against IFN-ω and/or IFN-α, which were associated with low serum IFN levels in vivo and inhibited the ability of IFN-α2 to block SARS-CoV-2 from infecting Huh7.5 cells in vitro [6]. These autoantibodies were not found in any of 663 patients with mild or asymptomatic disease and are estimated to be present in 0.33% (0.015–0.67%) of the general population. Strikingly, 94% of the patients with neutralizing autoantibodies were male, providing yet another mechanism for the observed male bias in severe disease and death. Among COVID-19 patients with mild disease, a male sex bias exists during the recovery phase of COVID-19 where males produce more robust anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike protein antibodies and greater neutralizing antibodies than females. Because Takahashi et al. saw no sex difference in antibody titers at baseline, this points to a potential difference in antibody kinetics between the sexes [7]. Takahashi et al. provide insight into the underlying immunological mechanisms that contribute to sex differences in COVID-19. Most published reports describe heterogeneity of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, without analytical consideration of the host demographic factors that could be involved. The data in Takahashi et al. illustrate that host demographic factors, including sex, explain heterogeneity in the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which could provide novel insights into targetable factors that could mitigate disease. Pre-existing conditions, age, BMI, sex, and other intrinsic factors can all drastically alter how a viral pathogen is recognized, the magnitude and efficacy of innate and adaptive immune responses, and ultimately disease outcomes. Sex-specific treatment of all diseases, not just viruses and not just SARS-CoV-2, need to be further investigated and implemented. Furthermore, sex-disaggregated data in vaccine and therapeutic trials are crucial for developing interventions that are safe and effective for both sexes [8]. Most likely, this virus will be maintained in the environment as a seasonal pathogen, much like the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic virus, with long-term implications for public health. In the meantime, investigating sex differences in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has the potential to provide therapeutic insights and contribute to precision medical interventions that do not assume that we can all be treated identically to be protected equally.
  8 in total

1.  Clinical trials for COVID-19 should include sex as a variable.

Authors:  Evelyne Bischof; Jeannette Wolfe; Sabra L Klein
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Presence of Genetic Variants Among Young Men With Severe COVID-19.

Authors:  Caspar I van der Made; Annet Simons; Janneke Schuurs-Hoeijmakers; Guus van den Heuvel; Tuomo Mantere; Simone Kersten; Rosanne C van Deuren; Marloes Steehouwer; Simon V van Reijmersdal; Martin Jaeger; Tom Hofste; Galuh Astuti; Jordi Corominas Galbany; Vyne van der Schoot; Hans van der Hoeven; Wanda Hagmolen Of Ten Have; Eva Klijn; Catrien van den Meer; Jeroen Fiddelaers; Quirijn de Mast; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; Leo A B Joosten; Helger G Yntema; Christian Gilissen; Marcel Nelen; Jos W M van der Meer; Han G Brunner; Mihai G Netea; Frank L van de Veerdonk; Alexander Hoischen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  TLR7 escapes X chromosome inactivation in immune cells.

Authors:  Mélanie Souyris; Claire Cenac; Pascal Azar; Danièle Daviaud; Astrid Canivet; Solange Grunenwald; Catherine Pienkowski; Julie Chaumeil; José E Mejía; Jean-Charles Guéry
Journal:  Sci Immunol       Date:  2018-01-26

4.  Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population.

Authors:  Sabra L Klein; Andrew Pekosz; Han-Sol Park; Rebecca L Ursin; Janna R Shapiro; Sarah E Benner; Kirsten Littlefield; Swetha Kumar; Harnish Mukesh Naik; Michael J Betenbaugh; Ruchee Shrestha; Annie A Wu; Robert M Hughes; Imani Burgess; Patricio Caturegli; Oliver Laeyendecker; Thomas C Quinn; David Sullivan; Shmuel Shoham; Andrew D Redd; Evan M Bloch; Arturo Casadevall; Aaron Ar Tobian
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 5.  Considering how biological sex impacts immune responses and COVID-19 outcomes.

Authors:  Eileen P Scully; Jenna Haverfield; Rebecca L Ursin; Cara Tannenbaum; Sabra L Klein
Journal:  Nat Rev Immunol       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 108.555

6.  In vivo antiviral host transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 by viral load, sex, and age.

Authors:  Nicole A P Lieberman; Vikas Peddu; Hong Xie; Lasata Shrestha; Meei-Li Huang; Megan C Mears; Maria N Cajimat; Dennis A Bente; Pei-Yong Shi; Francesca Bovier; Pavitra Roychoudhury; Keith R Jerome; Anne Moscona; Matteo Porotto; Alexander L Greninger
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes.

Authors:  Takehiro Takahashi; Mallory K Ellingson; Patrick Wong; Benjamin Israelow; Carolina Lucas; Jon Klein; Julio Silva; Tianyang Mao; Ji Eun Oh; Maria Tokuyama; Peiwen Lu; Arvind Venkataraman; Annsea Park; Feimei Liu; Amit Meir; Jonathan Sun; Eric Y Wang; Arnau Casanovas-Massana; Anne L Wyllie; Chantal B F Vogels; Rebecca Earnest; Sarah Lapidus; Isabel M Ott; Adam J Moore; Albert Shaw; John B Fournier; Camila D Odio; Shelli Farhadian; Charles Dela Cruz; Nathan D Grubaugh; Wade L Schulz; Aaron M Ring; Albert I Ko; Saad B Omer; Akiko Iwasaki
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19.

Authors:  Paul Bastard; Lindsey B Rosen; Qian Zhang; Eleftherios Michailidis; Hans-Heinrich Hoffmann; Yu Zhang; Karim Dorgham; Quentin Philippot; Jérémie Rosain; Vivien Béziat; Steven M Holland; Guy Gorochov; Emmanuelle Jouanguy; Charles M Rice; Aurélie Cobat; Luigi D Notarangelo; Laurent Abel; Helen C Su; Jean-Laurent Casanova; Jérémy Manry; Elana Shaw; Liis Haljasmägi; Pärt Peterson; Lazaro Lorenzo; Lucy Bizien; Sophie Trouillet-Assant; Kerry Dobbs; Adriana Almeida de Jesus; Alexandre Belot; Anne Kallaste; Emilie Catherinot; Yacine Tandjaoui-Lambiotte; Jeremie Le Pen; Gaspard Kerner; Benedetta Bigio; Yoann Seeleuthner; Rui Yang; Alexandre Bolze; András N Spaan; Ottavia M Delmonte; Michael S Abers; Alessandro Aiuti; Giorgio Casari; Vito Lampasona; Lorenzo Piemonti; Fabio Ciceri; Kaya Bilguvar; Richard P Lifton; Marc Vasse; David M Smadja; Mélanie Migaud; Jérome Hadjadj; Benjamin Terrier; Darragh Duffy; Lluis Quintana-Murci; Diederik van de Beek; Lucie Roussel; Donald C Vinh; Stuart G Tangye; Filomeen Haerynck; David Dalmau; Javier Martinez-Picado; Petter Brodin; Michel C Nussenzweig; Stéphanie Boisson-Dupuis; Carlos Rodríguez-Gallego; Guillaume Vogt; Trine H Mogensen; Andrew J Oler; Jingwen Gu; Peter D Burbelo; Jeffrey I Cohen; Andrea Biondi; Laura Rachele Bettini; Mariella D'Angio; Paolo Bonfanti; Patrick Rossignol; Julien Mayaux; Frédéric Rieux-Laucat; Eystein S Husebye; Francesca Fusco; Matilde Valeria Ursini; Luisa Imberti; Alessandra Sottini; Simone Paghera; Eugenia Quiros-Roldan; Camillo Rossi; Riccardo Castagnoli; Daniela Montagna; Amelia Licari; Gian Luigi Marseglia; Xavier Duval; Jade Ghosn; John S Tsang; Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky; Kai Kisand; Michail S Lionakis; Anne Puel; Shen-Ying Zhang
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 63.714

  8 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  The Physiological Mechanisms of the Sex-Based Difference in Outcomes of COVID19 Infection.

Authors:  Susan Wray; Sarah Arrowsmith
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 4.566

2.  Gender Differences in Adverse Events Following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

Authors:  Manfred S Green; Victoria Peer; Avi Magid; Neta Hagani; Emilia Anis; Dorit Nitzan
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-03

Review 3.  Sex Differences in Immunity to Viral Infections.

Authors:  Henning Jacobsen; Sabra L Klein
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 7.561

Review 4.  The impact of biological sex on diseases of the urinary tract.

Authors:  Léa Deltourbe; Livia Lacerda Mariano; Teri N Hreha; David A Hunstad; Molly A Ingersoll
Journal:  Mucosal Immunol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 8.701

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.