| Literature DB >> 34122423 |
Lorena Vigón1, Daniel Fuertes2, Javier García-Pérez1, Montserrat Torres1, Sara Rodríguez-Mora1, Elena Mateos1, Magdalena Corona3, Adolfo J Saez-Marín3, Rosa Malo4, Cristina Navarro5, María Aranzazu Murciano-Antón6, Miguel Cervero7, José Alcamí1, Valentín García-Gutiérrez3, Vicente Planelles8, María Rosa López-Huertas1, Mayte Coiras1.
Abstract
Infection by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causes different presentations of COVID-19 and some patients may progress to a critical, fatal form of the disease that requires their admission to ICU and invasive mechanical ventilation. In order to predict in advance which patients could be more susceptible to develop a critical form of COVID-19, it is essential to define the most adequate biomarkers. In this study, we analyzed several parameters related to the cellular immune response in blood samples from 109 patients with different presentations of COVID-19 who were recruited in Hospitals and Primary Healthcare Centers in Madrid, Spain, during the first pandemic peak between April and June 2020. Hospitalized patients with the most severe forms of COVID-19 showed a potent inflammatory response that was not translated into an efficient immune response. Despite the high levels of effector cytotoxic cell populations such as NK, NKT and CD8+ T cells, they displayed immune exhaustion markers and poor cytotoxic functionality against target cells infected with pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 or cells lacking MHC class I molecules. Moreover, patients with critical COVID-19 showed low levels of the highly cytotoxic TCRγδ+ CD8+ T cell subpopulation. Conversely, CD4 count was greatly reduced in association to high levels of Tregs, low plasma IL-2 and impaired Th1 differentiation. The relative importance of these immunological parameters to predict COVID-19 severity was analyzed by Random Forest algorithm and we concluded that the most important features were related to an efficient cytotoxic response. Therefore, efforts to fight against SARS-CoV-2 infection should be focused not only to decrease the disproportionate inflammatory response, but also to elicit an efficient cytotoxic response against the infected cells and to reduce viral replication.Entities:
Keywords: CD8 lymphocytes +; COVID-19; NK and NKT cells; SARS-CoV-2; cytotoxic response
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34122423 PMCID: PMC8187764 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.665329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Summary of clinical data of patients with COVID-19 that participated in the study.
| Mild COVID-19 | Severe COVID-19 | Critical COVID-19 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n) | 55 | 19 | 35 |
| Median age with IQR (years) | 46 (29.3 to 56.3) | 72 (67.0 to 84.0) | 63 (56.0 to 71.0) |
| Male/female (n) | 18/37 | 12/7 | 26/9 |
| Hypertension (Yes/No/Und) | 7/48/0 | 13/6/0 | 20/13/2 |
| Dyslipemia (Yes/No/Und) | 10/45/0 | 6/13/0 | 12/21/2 |
| Diabetes (Yes/No/Und) | 1/54/0 | 5/14/0 | 5/28/2 |
| Pneumonia (Yes/No/Und) | 0/55/0 | 15/4/0 | 28/3/4 |
| Invasive mechanical ventilation (Yes/No/Und) | NA | 1/18/0 | 27/6/2 |
| DIC (Yes/No/Und) | 0/55/0 | 3/14/0 | 4/27/2 |
| Median LOS with IQR (days) | NA | 23 (10.0 to 38.0) | 50 (34.0 to 92.3) |
| Median ICU stay with IQR (days) | NA | 0 | 48 (20.5 to 62.0) |
| Exitus (Yes/No) | 0/55 | 0/19 | 11/24 |
DIC, Disseminated intravascular coagulation; LOS, Length of hospitalization; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; IQR, Interquartile range; LOS, Length of hospitalization stay; NA, Not applicable; Und, Undetermined.
Figure 1Cytokine profile in plasma of patients with different stages of COVID-19. The levels of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines (A), cytokines involved in Th1 differentiation and survival (B), and cytokines with antiviral activity (C) were analyzed in plasma of patients with mild, severe and critical COVID-19, in comparison with healthy donors. Each dot corresponds to one sample and lines represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005.
Figure 2Analysis of CD4+ T cell subpopulations in patients with different stages of COVID-19. The levels of CD4+ T cells and Tregs (A), as well as the distribution of CD4 subpopulations (B), were analyzed in PBMCs of patients with mild, severe and critical COVID-19, in comparison with healthy donors. Each dot corresponds to one sample and lines represent mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Figure 3Analysis of CD8+ T cell subpopulations in patients with different stages of COVID-19. The levels of classical CD8+ T cells and unconventional CD8 ± TCRγδ+ (A), as well as the distribution of CD8 subpopulations (B), were analyzed in PBMCs of patients with mild, severe and critical COVID-19, in comparison with healthy donors. (C) Antiviral cytotoxicity of PBMCs from patients with different presentations of COVID-19 was analyzed by quantifying caspase-3 activity in a monolayer of Vero E6 cells infected with pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 viruses D614 and G614 that were co-cultured with PBMCs (1:10) for 1 hour. Each dot corresponds to one sample and lines represent mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005; ****p < 0.001.
Figure 4Analysis of NK and NKT cells in patients with different presentations of COVID-19. Analysis of NK cells expressing the activation marker CD56 and the immune exhaustion marker PD1 (A), as well as other activation markers (B). (C) Analysis of NKT cell population CD3+CD56+CD16+, as well as the degranulation marker CD107a and their ability to synthesize GZB in response to Hsp70 peptide. (D) Cytotoxicity of PBMCs from patients with different presentations of COVID-19 was analyzed by quantifying early apoptosis in K562 cells as unspecific target after co-culture (1:10) for 1 hour. Each dot corresponds to one sample and lines represent mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Figure 5HLA-E and KIR genotyping in patients with different presentations of COVID-19. (A) Analysis by qPCR of the percentage of HLA-E genotyping and alleles frequency in patients with severe (n=19) and critical (n=35) COVID-19, in comparison with patients with mild COVID-19 (n=55). (B) Analysis of the percentage of KIR alleles and haplotypes frequency in the same patients. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. **p < 0.01; ****p < 0.001.
Figure 6Application of random forest algorithm and Gini VIM method to evaluate the accuracy and importance of the selected biomarkers to predict the worst progression of COVID-19. Accuracy for the 5 iterations of the outer loop of the nested K-fold cross validation and confusion matrix confronting the conditions predicted by the algorithm and the true severity-related conditions of patients with mild, severe and critical COVID-19 (A) or with severe and critical COVID-19 (B). (C) Relative importance of the selected immunological parameters for the categorization of patients with mild, severe and critical COVID-19, according to Gini VIM method.