| Literature DB >> 35478803 |
Kurt Wagner1, Muhammad A Sami2, Corey Norton2, Jonathan McCoy3, Umer Hassan2,4.
Abstract
The ability to kill infecting microbes is an essential facet of our immune response to an infection. However, phagocytic ability is often overlooked as a part of immunological profile in infected patients' diagnosis, as the understanding of phagocytic capabilities in disease states is incomplete. In this work, we have evaluated for the first time the relationship between blood lactate level and the neutrophil phagocytic activity at a single-cell level. Blood samples (N = 19) were grouped on the basis of their blood lactate levels i.e., below (control) or above 2 mmol L-1 (high-risk) (i.e., 2 mmol L-1 is a common clinical lactate threshold used for patients' triage). Neutrophils were isolated from whole blood and then incubated with fluorescent IgG coated beads for 40 minutes, and the ability of each neutrophil to internalize beads was quantified. Single-cell phagocytic activity analysis has shown interesting findings such as: (i) a single neutrophil was able to internalize up to 7 beads, (ii) for a control group, 39.76% cells didn't internalize any beads, while for a high-risk group, 30.65% cells didn't show any phagocytic activity, (iii) similarly, 30.46% cells internalize only 1 bead in a control group, while for a high-risk group the activity is slightly higher with only 31.73% cells showing single bead internalization, and (iv) 7 bead internalization activity was much higher for samples in a high-risk group (0.6% cells) compared to a control group (0.17% cells). We used multiple statistical tests to compare these differences. For a two-tailed T-test, we used the mean phagocytic activity of the cells (i.e., the average number of beads internalized by cells) isolated from the blood samples in the two groups (1.14 vs. 1.35) and found the p-value to be 0.08. We also used principal component analysis (PCA) on this high dimensional phagocytic activity distribution data and performed dimension reduction. However, the first 3 principal components didn't show a clear distinction between groups. Next, we developed machine learning models using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to differentiate between the distribution of phagocytic activity in neutrophil populations of the two groups. Our models yielded area under curve (AUC) values below 0.7 for receiver operator characteristic curves. Although our study highlighted interesting phagocytic activity findings at a single cell level, it further highlights the need for integration of an individual patient's medical record to get more personalized insights into individual phagocytic activity in the future. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35478803 PMCID: PMC9034040 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra02759j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Flowchart explaining the protocol for neutrophil isolation from whole blood and the addition of fluorescent beads for quantification of phagocytic activity.
Fig. 2(a) Brightfield image of neutrophils challenged with IgG coated fluorescent beads (scale bar = 20 μm). (b) Nucleus of the neutrophils shown in (a) fluorescing because of the nuclear stain (scale bar = 20 μm). (c) Cellular membranes of the neutrophils shown in (a) fluorescing because of the membrane stain (scale bar = 20 μm). (d) The green IgG coated fluorescent beads used for challenging the isolated neutrophils (scale bar = 20 μm). (e) The final combined imaged showing the neutrophils and the IgG beads that were internalized by each (scale bar = 10 μm).
Fig. 3(a) Mean neutrophil phagocytic activity of the patient samples plotted against their blood lactate level. (b) The weighted average neutrophil phagocytic activity distribution for the patient sample in the two groups under consideration.
Fig. 4(a) Combined ROC curve of the 100 networks trained using SCG algorithm. (b) Combined confusion matrix of the 100 networks trained using SCG algorithm. (c) Combined ROC curve of the 100 networks trained using BR algorithm. (d) Combined confusion matrix of the 100 networks trained using BR algorithm. (e) Combined ROC curve of the 100 networks trained using LM algorithm. (f) Combined confusion matrix of the 100 networks trained using LM algorithm. (In confusion matrices, 0 represents the control group and 1 represents the high-risk group).
Fig. 5(a) The proportion of variance shared by each principal component along with the combined variance. (b) 3D plot showing the 19 patient samples when plotted on the basis of their first 3 principal components.