| Literature DB >> 35464396 |
Zhaoli Liu1,2, Gizem Kilic3, Wenchao Li1,2, Ozlem Bulut3, Manoj Kumar Gupta1,2, Bowen Zhang1,2, Cancan Qi1,2,3, He Peng1,2, Hsin-Chieh Tsay1,2, Chai Fen Soon1,2, Yonatan Ayalew Mekonnen1,2, Anaísa Valido Ferreira3,4, Caspar I van der Made3, Bram van Cranenbroek5, Hans J P M Koenen5, Elles Simonetti6, Dimitri Diavatopoulos6, Marien I de Jonge5, Lisa Müller7, Heiner Schaal7, Philipp N Ostermann7, Markus Cornberg1,2,8, Britta Eiz-Vesper9, Frank van de Veerdonk3, Reinout van Crevel3, Leo A B Joosten3, Jorge Domínguez-Andrés3, Cheng-Jian Xu1,2,3,8, Mihai G Netea3,10, Yang Li1,2,3.
Abstract
The majority of COVID-19 patients experience mild to moderate disease course and recover within a few weeks. An increasing number of studies characterized the long-term changes in the specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses, but how COVID-19 shapes the innate and heterologous adaptive immune system after recovery is less well known. To comprehensively investigate the post-SARS-CoV-2 infection sequelae on the immune system, we performed a multi-omics study by integrating single-cell RNA-sequencing, single-cell ATAC-sequencing, genome-wide DNA methylation profiling, and functional validation experiments in 14 convalescent COVID-19 and 15 healthy individuals. We showed that immune responses generally recover without major sequelae after COVID-19. However, subtle differences persist at the transcriptomic level in monocytes, with downregulation of the interferon pathway, while DNA methylation also displays minor changes in convalescent COVID-19 individuals. However, these differences did not affect the cytokine production capacity of PBMCs upon different bacterial, viral, and fungal stimuli, although baseline release of IL-1Ra and IFN-γ was higher in convalescent individuals. In conclusion, we propose that despite minor differences in epigenetic and transcriptional programs, the immune system of convalescent COVID-19 patients largely recovers to the homeostatic level of healthy individuals.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; DNA methylation; SARS-CoV-2; convalescence; multi-omics; single-cell sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35464396 PMCID: PMC9022455 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.838132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
General characteristics of the study population.
| Convalescence | Control | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n=14) | (n=15) | |||
|
| 60 ± 11 | 50 ± 14 | 0.054 | |
|
| 7/7 | 7/8 | 1 | |
|
| 22 ± 2.53 | 22 ± 1.85 | 0.97 | |
|
| Fever and headache | 12/14 | ||
| (# of having symptom/# all individuals) | sleepy and tired | 7/14 | ||
| no taste | 6/14 | |||
| no smell | 5/14 | |||
| cough | 4/14 | |||
| pain | 4/14 | |||
| weight loss | 2/14 | |||
| nausea | 1/14 | |||
| no appetite | 1/14 | |||
Figure 1Study design and immune cell populations of healthy controls and convalescent COVID-19 patients. (A) The summary of the experiments performed in the study. Blood was drawn from 15 healthy controls and 14 convalescent COVID-19 patients. Flow cytometry, RT-qPCR, and ELISA were performed to determine the cell counts, assess interferon stimulated gene expressions, and measure the cytokine levels in culture supernatants, respectively. Single-cell RNA sequencing was used to determine the transcriptome. Single-cell ATAC sequencing and whole-genome methylation assay were performed to analyze the epigenetic differences between convalescent COVID-19 individuals and controls (This figure was created with BioRender.com). (B) Dot plots showing proportions of T cell subsets between the convalescent COVID-19 individuals and controls from flow cytometry. Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between controls (black dots) and convalescent patients (red dots).
Figure 2Single-cell transcriptome and epigenome analysis defined major immune cell subsets in convalescent COVID-19 individuals. (A) A total of 41486 and 25266 single-cell transcriptomes from COVID-19 convalescent and control samples were obtained respectively. Using the uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) method, we captured 11 major cell types based on the canonical markers in the dot plots (B). (B) Dot plot showing the expression level of the marker genes in each cell type. Dot size reflects the proportion of cells expressing the indicated gene; the color encodes the average expression level (low=blue, high=red). (C) A total of 21102 and 17084 nuclei from 9 COVID-19 convalescent and 7 control samples were obtained respectively. Seven major cell types were captured based on the canonical markers shown in the feature plot(D). (D) The UMAP showing the labelled gene score for each cell. Blue represents the minimum gene score while red represents the maximum gene score for the given gene. The minimum and maximum scores are shown in the bottom of each panel. The gene of interest are shown in the upper of each panel. Cell proportions from (E) single-cell RNA sequencing and (F) single-cell ATAC dataset between convalescent COVID-19 and controls in the seven main cell types, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, B cells, NK cells, classical monocytes, non-classical monocytes, and mDCs.
Figure 3Antigen processing and presentation via MHC II were downregulated in convalescent COVID-19 individuals, while baseline expressions of Interferon-Stimulated Genes (ISGs) in PBMCs are comparable to uninfected individuals. (A) Dot plot showing the MHC II expression levels across different conditions. The size of the dot depicts the percentage of cells within classical monocytes or non-classical monocytes; the color encodes the average expression level (low=blue, high=red). (B) Dot plot showing the GO enrichment analysis of DEGs in CD4+ T cells. The color and size of the dot indicate the significance (adjusted P-value) and the percentage of DEGs in the given GO term, respectively (BP, biological process, MF, molecular function). Top 10 enriched categories were shown. (C) UMAP of single-cell RNA sequencing data in classical monocytes in convalescent COVID-19 (n = 11) and control (n=9) samples. 5 cell clusters were identified. (D) Dot plot showing the top 10 markers for each cell cluster using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. The 0-4 in the y-axis means the cell clusters from(C). The color and size of the dot indicate the gene expression level (low=blue, high=red) and percentage of cells which expressing these markers. (E) Dot plot showing the GO enrichment categories of the DEGs found in each cluster. (F) Dot plot showing the interferon response genes expression levels across different conditions. The size of the dot depicts the percentage of cells expressing the indicated genes within cluster0; the color encodes the average expression level (low=blue, high=red). (G) Box plots showing the gene expressions of the seven interferon-stimulated genes (IRF7, IRF9, IRF3, ISG15, OAS2, IFI44L, and IFI6) 24 hours after stimulation with recombinant human IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ. Fold changes over RPMI (unstimulated condition) were reported. Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between controls and convalescent patients (n = 6, *P value < 0.05, **P value < 0.001).
Expressions of interferon-stimulated genes analyzed by pseudo-bulk RNAseq and pseudo-bulk ATACseq.
| Gene | pseudo bulk RNA | pseudo bulk ATAC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log2FC | raw P | log2FC | raw P | |
|
| 0.66 | 0.055 | 0.14 | 0.513 |
|
| 1.04 | 0.021 | 0.04 | 0.693 |
|
| 1.18 | 0.285 | 0.31 | 0.048 |
|
| 0.41 | 0.262 | -0.29 | 0.249 |
|
| 0.46 | 0.314 | -0.46 | 0.088 |
|
| 0.16 | 0.617 | 0.05 | 0.903 |
|
| -0.006 | 0.984 | 0.17 | 0.209 |
*Wald test was used to analyze the differences between controls and convalescent patients.
Figure 4A predominance of down-regulated methylation sites was observed in convalescent COVID-19 patients, mainly originating from monocytes and CD4+ T cells. (A) Box plot showing the estimated cell proportions in convalescent COVID-19 (n = 11) and control (n = 9) samples based on the methylation. No significant difference was observed in estimated cell proportions between the two conditions. (B) The number of up-/down-regulated and hyper/hypomethylated CpG sites in top 150 differentials methylated CpG sites ordered by raw P value from the linear regression model. A preponderance of hypermethylated sites and down-regulated methylation value was consistently observed at various thresholds compared with those in healthy controls. Fisher’s exact test was used for the statistical analysis. (C) The density ridgeline plots showing the correction between the estimated cell proportions and the up-regulated CpG sites in the top 150 differentially methylated CpG sites. (D) The density ridgeline plots showing the correction between the estimated cell proportions and the down-regulated CpG sites in the top 150 differentially methylated CpG sites. One side Wilcoxon test was used to calculate the significance of the correlation.
Figure 5Cytokine production capacity is intact in people recovered from COVID-19. The concentrations of (A) TNF-α and (B) IL-6 after stimulation of PBMCs with LPS, C. albicans, S. aureus, R848, and heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2. (C) IL-1β production following S. aureus and R848 stimulation. (D) IFNα levels after incubation with R848 and heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2. (E) IL-1Ra and (F) IFN-γ at the baseline (RPMI condition) and stimulation with R848 and SARS-CoV-2. TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β, IFNα and IL-1Ra productions were measured after 24 hours, while IFN-γ was measured after 7 days of incubation. Stimulations with R848 and SARS-CoV-2 were performed later with cryopreserved cells, while the rest of the stimulations were done with freshly isolated PBMCs. Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the differences between controls and convalescent patients (*P value < 0.05, **P value < 0.001).