| Literature DB >> 33978940 |
Dongyan Xiong1,2, Caroline Muema1,2, Xiaoxu Zhang1,2, Xinming Pan3, Jin Xiong1, Hang Yang1, Junping Yu4, Hongping Wei5.
Abstract
As a respiratory tract virus, SARS-CoV-2 infected people through contacting with the upper respiratory tract first. Previous studies indicated that microbiota could modulate immune response against pathogen infection. In the present study, we performed metagenomic sequencing of pharyngeal swabs from eleven patients with COVID-19 and eleven Non-COVID-19 patients who had similar symptoms such as fever and cough. Through metagenomic analysis of the above two groups and a healthy group from the public data, there are 6502 species identified in the samples. Specifically, the Pielou index indicated a lower evenness of the microbiota in the COVID-19 group than that in the Non-COVID-19 group. Combined with the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and the generalized linear model, eighty-one bacterial species were found with increased abundance in the COVID-19 group, where 51 species were enriched more than 8 folds. The top three enriched genera were Streptococcus, Prevotella and Campylobacter containing some opportunistic pathogens. More interestingly, through experiments, we found that two Streptococcus strains, S. suis and S. agalactiae, could stimulate the expression of ACE2 of Vero cells in vitro, which may promote SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, these enriched pathogens in the pharynxes of COVID-19 patients may involve in the virus-host interactions to affect SARS-CoV-2 infection and cause potential secondary bacterial infections through changing the expression of the viral receptor ACE2 and/or modulate the host's immune system.Entities:
Keywords: ACE2; COVID-19; Campylobacter; Metagenome sequencing; Prevotella; Streptococcus
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33978940 PMCID: PMC8114661 DOI: 10.1007/s12250-021-00391-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virol Sin ISSN: 1995-820X Impact factor: 4.327
Sequencing and RT-qPCR results of the 11 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples.
| Sample | Seq length (bp) | Number of contigs | Number of reads | Ct value | Avg depth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 30,062 | 1 | 200,476 | 17.5 | 886 |
| S2 | 29,977 | 1 | 295,310 | 17.1 | 316 |
| S3 | 30,026 | 1 | 225,212 | 23.1 | 1,009 |
| S4 | 29,531 | 7 | 3632 | 26.2 | 11 |
| S5 | 29,660 | 1 | 292,054 | 23.6 | 35 |
| S6 | 393 | 1 | 82 | 28.4 | 30 |
| S7 | 27,958 | 10 | 3268 | 26.3 | 10 |
| S8 | 29,889 | 23 | 2836 | 28.6 | 11 |
| S9 | 1061 | 2 | 12 | 31.2 | 2 |
| S10 | 2553 | 5 | 148,226 | 26.4 | 103 |
| S11 | 29,296 | 3 | 8050 | 25.7 | 36 |
Fig. 1Basic information of the metagenomic data. A Length distribution of the contigs assembled from each sample. B Cumulative curve of the species identified in the samples.
Fig. 2The microbiome difference in the pharyngeal swabs of the COVID-19 group (n = 11), the Non-COVID-19 group (n = 11) and the Healthy group (n = 7). Comparison of the alpha diversity indexes using Observed species (A), Shannon index (B), and Pielou index (C) based on the metagenomic profiles at the species level. The Kruskal–Wallis test is used for significance calculation. D Samples clustered by UPGMA using Bray–Curtis distance (left), and top twelve abundant orders with the relative abundance in the corresponding samples (right) at the order level. E Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) of the species present in more than 20% of all samples based on the Bray–Curtis distance. ANOSIM, R = 0.53, P = 0.001.
Fig. 3Analysis of species with differential abundance among the COVID-19, Non-COVID-19 and healthy cohorts. A Average relative abundance of the most discriminated species identified by linear discriminant analysis in three cohorts. B Differential abundance species identified by comparative analysis of the COVID-19 and the Non-COVID-19 group via generalized linear model. C Heatmap showing the abundance changes of all the significantly differential species among the three cohorts.
Fig. 4Relative expression level of ACE2 with time after interaction of the Vero cells with the bacteria. Each of treatment was performed three replications. The relative expression level of ACE2 was determined using the 2−ΔΔCt method (Livak and Schmittgen 2001) and compared to that of the blank control group using the Student’s t test. Each point in the line chart represents the mean value of relative expression level of ACE2 at the different infection time, and the error bar represents the standard deviation.