| Literature DB >> 33166788 |
Elena Yeregui1, Consuelo Viladés1, Pere Domingo2, Andra Ceausu3, Yolanda María Pacheco4, Sergi Veloso1, Alexy Inciarte5, Judit Vidal-González6, Maria Peraire7, Carles Perpiñán8, Vicenç Falcó9, Jenifer Masip3, Verónica Alba3, Montserrat Vargas3, Anna Martí1, Laia Reverté1, Josep Mallolas5, Francesc Vidal10, Joaquim Peraire1, Anna Rull1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The underlying mechanisms of incomplete immune reconstitution in treated HIV-positive patients are very complex and may be multifactorial, but perturbation of chemokine secretion could play a key role in CD4+T-cell turnover.Entities:
Keywords: Chemokine receptors; Chemokines; HIV; Polymorphisms variants; Poor immune recovery
Year: 2020 PMID: 33166788 PMCID: PMC7653063 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Flowchart illustrating subject cohort enrolment and analysis. HIV-infected subjects were included and categorized as controls and cases according to the pre-cART CD4+T-cell counts. For the immune recovery sub-study group, cases starting cART with T-cell counts below 200 cells/µL were categorized according to their immune status after 48 weeks of follow-up.
Study cohort (n = 502) characteristics of the according classification criteria .
| Control ( | Cases ( | P-value* | IR ( | INR ( | P-value** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at cART initiation (years) | 37 [31–45] | 39 [34–48] | 37 [33–42] | 42 [36–50] | ||
| Male | 209 (80.38) | 192 (80.67) | 0.545 | 94 (79.67) | 83 (76.85) | 0.610 |
| Risk factor | 0.268 | |||||
| Heterosexual | 89 (34.23) | 92 (38.65) | 43 (37.07) | 47 (43.52) | ||
| Homo/Bisexual | 128 (49.23) | 94 (39.50) | 58 (50.00) | 35 (32.41) | ||
| Intravenous drug abuse | 37 (14.23) | 47 (19.75) | 13 (11.21) | 23 (21.3) | ||
| Other/Unknown | 6 (2.29) | 5 (2.10) | 2 (1.72) | 3 (2.78) | ||
| CD4+ | 327 [265–439] | 92 [37–162] | 135 [59–182] | 59 [19–116] | ||
| Plasma HIV RNA load (log copies/mL) | 4.88 [4.30–5.26] | 5.15 [4.72–5.61] | 5.08 [4.74–5.61] | 5.27 [4.77–5.67] | 0.587 | |
| HCV co-infection (Positive) | 38 (16.17) | 48 (22.53) | 0.257 | 22 (19.47) | 22 (22.68) | 0.116 |
| SDF-1 (pg/mL) ( | 0.25 [0.21–0.30] | 0.26 [0.22–0.30] | 0.25 [0.21–0.30] | 0.26 [0.24–0.31] | ||
| Log RANTES (pg/mL) ( | 1.45 [0.77–1.91] | 1.75 [1.04–1.97] | 1.61 [0.97–1.95] | 1.86 [1.11–1.98] | 0.104 | |
| Log FK (pg/mL) ( | 0.66 [0.57–0.79] | 0.67 [0.55–0.76] | 0.583 | 0.66 [0.55–0.76] | 0.68 [0.55–0.78] | 0.304 |
| Log MCP-1 (pg/mL) ( | 2.40 [2.18–2.61] | 2.51 [2.31–2.73] | 2.47 [2.24–2.69] | 2.58 [2.39–2.78] | ||
| Log MIP-a (pg/mL) ( | 1.46 [1.24–1.70] | 1.34 [1.21–1.50] | 1.31 [1.18–1.49] | 1.39 [1.21–1.55] | 0.424 | |
| Log MIP-b (pg/mL) ( | 1.69 [1.52–1.81] | 1.64 [1.49–1.80] | 0.471 | 1.63 [1.49–1.78] | 1.66 [1.45–1.81] | 0.571 |
Data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were compared by means of a χ2 test, whereas continuous data were compared using non-parametric Mann-Whitney test (P* value for comparison between control and cases, P** value for comparison between IR and INR). P value 〈 0.05 was considered significant and is highlighted in bold. All P values 〉 0.05 but < 0.10 were considered relevant for results interpretation and are italicized. INR, incomplete immune recoverers; IR, immune recoverers.
MCP-1/CCL2, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1; MIP-α/CCL3, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha; MIP-β/CCL4, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta; RANTES/CCL5, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted and SDF-1/CXCL12, stromal cell-derived factor 1.
Fig. 2a) Correlation analysis between the baseline (pre-cART) CD4+T-cell counts and selected chemokines (Spearman correlation test). Insert shows the baseline circulating concentrations of the selected chemokines in INRs (n = 85) and IRs (n = 89) compared with those in a group of control participants (n = 206) (non-parametric Mann-Whitney test). b) Association of plasma chemokine concentrations to pre-cART low CD4+T-cell counts (b.1) and immune recovery status (b.2) (Multiple regression analysis). b.1) Stepwise regression results for the prediction of the baseline pre-cART CD4+T-cell counts. The dependent variable was baseline pre-cART CD4+T-cell counts and the independent variables tested initially were log CV, SDF-1/CXCL12, log fractalkine/ CX3CL1, log MCP-1/CCL2, log MIP-α/CCL3, log MIP-β/CCL4 and log RANTES/CCL5. b.2) Standard regression results for the prediction of immune recovery status. The dependent variable was CD4+T-cell counts after 48 weeks of cART and the independent variables were SDF-1/CXCL12 and log MCP-1/CCL2. sr2 = squared semi-partial correlation used to calculated the percentage of the variance.
Fig. 3Longitudinal evaluation of SDF-1/CXCL12 (n = 208 controls, n = 85 INR and n = 88 IR), RANTES/CCL5 (n = 208 controls, n = 85 INR and n = 89 IR), MCP-1/CCL2 (n = 185 controls, n = 77 INR and n = 80 IR) and MIP-α/CCL-3 (n = 130 controls, n = 48 INR and n = 53 IR) during 48 weeks of cART in INRs and IRs compared to a control group of subjects.
Data are represented as the mean±SEM. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, * significant differences to control group and ϕ significant differences to IRs) .
General characteristics for the genetic study of CXCL12 (SDF-1) and CCL5 (RANTES) gene variants.
| Polymorphism | Chr Position | Genotype | Cases | Control | P-value | Cases | P-value | HWE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INR | IR | Control | INR | IR | |||||||
| CXCL12 rs1801157 | chr10:44,372,809 | CC | 144 (68%) | 151 (67%) | 0.439 | 64 (67%) | 73 (71%) | 0.054 | 0.33 | 0.12 | |
| CT | 62 (29%) | 61 (27%) | 27 (28%) | 30 (29%) | |||||||
| TT | 7 (3%) | 13 (6%) | 5 (5%) | – | |||||||
| CCL5 rs2280789 | chr17:35,879,999 | TT | 156 (75%) | 176 (80%) | 0.177 | 75 (77%) | 73 (74%) | 0.812 | 0.48 | 0.63 | 0.43 |
| TC | 47 (23%) | 45 (20%) | 20 (21%) | 23 (23%) | |||||||
| CC | 5 (2%) | 1 (0%) | 2 (2%) | 3 (3%) | |||||||
| CCL5 rs2280788 | chr17:35,880,401 | CC | 205 (95%) | 219 (95%) | 0.948 | 98 (95%) | 96 (96%) | 0.767 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| GC | 10 (5%) | 11 (5%) | 5 (5%) | 4 (4%) | |||||||
| CCL5 rs2107538 | chr17:35,880,776 | CC | 135 (64%) | 144 (64%) | 0.548 | 64 (66%) | 64 (62%) | 0.348 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 1 |
| CT | 66 (31% | 73 (33%) | 30 (31%) | 31 (30%) | |||||||
| TT | 11 (5%) | 7 (3%) | 3 (3%) | 8 (8%) | |||||||
P-values were calculated by the Chi-square test. HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
Fig. 4Genetic association study of selected chemokine and chemokine receptor gene variants. a) Distribution of CXCL12 rs1801157, CCR2 rs1799864_814, CCR5 rs1800024 and CCR5 rs333_814 (Δ32) among cases (n = 100 INR and n = 100 in IR) (P-values were calculated by the Chi-square test). b) Linkage disequilibrium analysis in cases (INRs versus IRs) for chemokine receptor located on chromosome 3 (n = 450) (Multiple SNP-analysis by SNPstats software).
Association between CXCL12 and CCL5 gene variants to immunological recovery status after 48 weeks of cART.
| Polymorphism | IHT model | Genotype | INR | IR | OR (95% CI) | P-value | AIC | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A) | ||||||||
| rs1801157 | Codominant | C/C | 64 (66.7%) | 73 (70.9%) | 1.00 | 249.6 | 262.8 | |
| C/T | 27 (28.1%) | 30 (29.1%) | 0.86 (0.44–1.68) | |||||
| T/T | 5 (5.2%) | 0 (0%) | 0.00 (0.00-NA) | |||||
| Dominant | C/C | 64 (66.7%) | 73 (70.9%) | 1.00 | 0.34 | 253.3 | 263.2 | |
| C/T-T/T | 32 (33.3%) | 30 (29.1%) | 0.73 (0.38–1.39) | |||||
| Recessive | C/C—C/T | 91 (94.8%) | 103 (100%) | 1.00 | ||||
| T/T | 5 (5.2%) | 0 (0%) | 0.00 (0.00-NA) | |||||
| Overdominant | C/C-T/T | 69 (71.9%) | 73 (70.9%) | 1.00 | 0.82 | 254.1 | 264 | |
| C/T | 27 (28.1%) | 30 (29.1%) | 0.93 (0.48–1.80) | |||||
General characteristics for the genetic study of CX3CR1, CCR2 and CCR5 gene variants.
| Polymorphism | Chr Position | Genotype | Cases | Control | P-value | Cases | P-value | HWE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INR | IR | Control | INR | IR | |||||||
| CX3CR1rs3732378_814 | chr3:39,265,671 | GG | 153 (73%) | 171 (76%) | 0.379 | 68 (72%) | 78 (76%) | 0.517 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 1 |
| GA | 54 (26%) | 49 (22%) | 26 (27%) | 23 (23%) | |||||||
| AA | 2 (1%) | 5 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | |||||||
| CX3CR1 rs3732379 | chr3:39,265,765 | CC | 111 (54%) | 118 (55%) | 0.733 | 47 (51%) | 58 (58%) | 0.347 | 0.49 | 0.28 | 0.59 |
| CT | 83 (4%) | 80 (37%) | 41 (45%) | 35 (35%) | |||||||
| TT | 11 (5%) | 17 (8%) | 4 (4%) | 7 (7%) | |||||||
| CCR2 rs1799864 | chr3:46,357,717 | GG | 175 (82%) | 184 (83%) | 0.980 | 74 (76%) | 88 (85%) | 1 | 0.35 | 0.16 | |
| GA | 37 (17%) | 37 (17%) | 23 (24%) | 14 (13%) | |||||||
| AA | 2 (1%) | 2 (1%) | – | 2 (2%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs2734648 | chr3:46,370,349 | GG | 78 (38%) | 76 (34%) | 0.583 | 34 (37%) | 40 (40%) | 0.919 | 0.58 | 1 | 1 |
| GT | 96 (47%) | 104 (47%) | 44 (47%) | 46 (46%) | |||||||
| TT | 31 (15%) | 42 (19%) | 15 (16%) | 14 (14%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs1799987 | chr3:46,370,444 | AA | 59 (28%) | 58 (26%) | 0.565 | 26 (27%) | 28 (27%) | 0.946 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 1 |
| AG | 107 (51%) | 109 (49%) | 52 (54%) | 52 (51%) | |||||||
| GG | 44 (21%) | 56 (25%) | 19 (20%) | 22 (22%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs1799988 | chr3:46,370,768 | CC | 59 (30%) | 62 (28%) | 0.842 | 28 (30%) | 28 (30%) | 0.851 | 0.34 | 1 | 1 |
| CT | 98 (49%) | 102 (47%) | 47 (51%) | 46 (49%) | |||||||
| TT | 41 (21%) | 55 (25%) | 18 (19%) | 20 (21%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs1800023 | chr3:46,370,817 | AA | 82 (40%) | 85 (38%) | 0.515 | 36 (38%) | 42 (42%) | 0.856 | 0.40 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| AG | 92 (45%) | 107 (45%) | 43 (46%) | 44 (44%) | |||||||
| GG | 31 (15%) | 38 (17%) | 15 (16%) | 14 (14%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs1800024 | chr3:46,371,068 | CC | 169 (79%) | 181 (82%) | 0.749 | 70 (74%) | 86 (82%) | 1 | 0.36 | 0.08 | |
| CT | 41 (19%) | 38 (17%) | 25 (26%) | 16 (15%) | |||||||
| TT | 3 (1%) | 2 (1%) | – | 3 (3%) | |||||||
| CCR5 rs333_814 | chr3:46,373,453–46,373,487 | 1allele | 26 (13%) | 22 (10%) | 0.226 | 15 (16%) | 8 (8%) | – | – | – | |
| 2 alleles | 108 (87%) | 201 (90%) | 76 (84%) | 95 (92%) | |||||||
Haplotype association analysis for the chemokine receptor variants explored in this study with immune recovery status (n = 207). The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline pre-cART CD4+T-cell counts.
| Haplotype frequencies estimation ( | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CX3CR1 | CCR2 | CCR5 | Freq | Haplotype association with response ( | ||||||||||
| rs3732378 | rs3732379 | rs1799864 | rs2734648 | rs1799987 | rs1799988 | rs1800023 | rs1800024 | Δ32 | INR | IR | Freq | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| 1 | G | C | G | T | G | T | G | C | B | 0.2237 | 0.1974 | 0.2165 | 1.00 | — |
| 2 | G | C | G | G | A | C | A | C | A | 0.1821 | 0.2123 | 0.1899 | 0.39 (0.10–1.44) | 0.16 |
| 3 | G | C | G | G | A | C | A | C | B | 0.104 | 0.0808 | 0.1019 | 0.54 (0.15–1.94) | 0.35 |
| 4 | G | C | G | T | G | T | G | C | A | 0.0930 | 0.1045 | 0.0886 | ||
| 5 | A | T | G | G | A | C | A | C | A | 0.1002 | 0.0622 | 0.0688 | ||
| 6 | G | T | G | G | A | C | A | C | A | 0.0343 | 0.0552 | 0.0578 | 1.06 (0.25–4.56) | 0.94 |
For the Δ32 analyses, the homozygous genotype (1 allele) was described as AA and the heterozygous genotype (2 alleles) was described as AB.
Only haplotype association with response that showed more than 0.05 frequencies was considered for the results.
Fig. 5Influence of chemokine receptor genes in circulating chemokine concentrations in INRs compared to IRs. Data are represented as the mean±SD (One-Way ANOVA testing for association between listed parameters and SNP genotypes).
Fig. 6Chemokine-chemokine receptor interaction analysis based on previously available data [9,10] using the STRING database [38]. The cytokine IL-7 and chemokines CCL2 to CCL5 have been selected as input, expanded by an additional 5 proteins in the STRING interface and the confidence cut-off for showing interactions links has been set to high confidence (0.700).