| Literature DB >> 35879274 |
Xiaohua Tang1,2, Rui Sun3,4,5,6,7, Weigang Ge3,4,5,6,7,8, Tingting Mao1, Liujia Qian3,4,5,6,7, Chongquan Huang1, Zhouyang Kang9,10, Qi Xiao3,4,5,6,7, Meng Luo3,4,5,6,7,9, Qiushi Zhang3,4,5,6,7,8, Sainan Li3,4,5,6,7, Hao Chen3,4,5,6,7,8, Wei Liu3,4,5,6,7, Bingjie Wang3,4,5,6,7, Shufei Li1, Xiaoling Lin1, Xueqin Xu1, Huanzheng Li1, Lianpeng Wu1, Jianyi Dai1, Huanhuan Gao3,4,5,6,7, Lu Li3,4,5,6,7, Tian Lu3,4,5,6,7, Xiao Liang3,4,5,6,7, Xue Cai3,4,5,6,7, Guan Ruan3,4,5,6,7,8, Fei Xu11, Yan Li12, Yi Zhu13,14,15,16,17, Ziqing Kong18, Jianping Huang19, Tiannan Guo20,21,22,23,24.
Abstract
Little is known regarding why a subset of COVID-19 patients exhibited prolonged positivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we found that patients with long viral RNA course (LC) exhibited prolonged high-level IgG antibodies and higher regulatory T (Treg) cell counts compared to those with short viral RNA course (SC) in terms of viral load. Longitudinal proteomics and metabolomics analyses of the patient sera uncovered that prolonged viral RNA shedding was associated with inhibition of the liver X receptor/retinoid X receptor (LXR/RXR) pathway, substantial suppression of diverse metabolites, activation of the complement system, suppressed cell migration, and enhanced viral replication. Furthermore, a ten-molecule learning model was established which could potentially predict viral RNA shedding period. In summary, this study uncovered enhanced inflammation and suppressed adaptive immunity in COVID-19 patients with prolonged viral RNA shedding, and proposed a multi-omic classifier for viral RNA shedding prediction.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35879274 PMCID: PMC9311354 DOI: 10.1038/s41421-022-00441-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Discov ISSN: 2056-5968 Impact factor: 38.079
Fig. 1Patients, samples, and study workflow.
a An overview timeline of our study cohort. The y-axis shows the patient ID, and the x-axis displays the length of RNA shedding measured from the onset. The 38 patients included 19 with short and 19 with long shedding courses (SC and LC, respectively). Other important information, including the virus nucleic acid test results (sputum or throat swab positive/negative result), gender, severity, comorbidities, etc., are shown in the right panel of the figure. The sputum swab was marked as positive from the first to the last continuously positive test during our observation; a persistent negative swab was negative until the end of our observation. The black dots indicate the sampling time for both omics data, while the blue or orange dots represent only the proteomics or metabolomics data, respectively. More details are provided in Supplementary Table S1. b Multi-omics overview involving virological detection based on RT-PCR, an immunological assay based on ELISA and flow cytometry, proteomics and metabolomics analyses for 38 COVID-19 patients and 35 control patients. A total of 298 sputum swab samples (from the 38 COVID-19 patients) and 70 sputum swab samples (from the 35 control patients) were used for the SARS-CoV-2 RNA assay across 16 weeks. Immunological measurements were comprised of 190 serum samples for antibodies-mediated detection over nine weeks and 43 whole blood samples for immune cell counting over three weeks. 217 serum samples and 251 peptide samples, including 34 technical replicates, were analyzed by TMT 16-plex-based quantitative proteomics. 193 serum samples and additional 29 quality control samples for metabolomics analysis were acquired with four different methods including three types of RP-UPLC and one of HILIC-UPLC. A total of 945 metabolites were identified.
Clinical characteristics of the studied cohort.
| Baseline characteristic | Non-COVID-19 | COVID-19 SC | COVID-19 LC |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |
| Gender—no.a(%) | |||
| Male | 18 (51.4) | 9 (47.4) | 10 (52.6) |
| Female | 17 (48.6) | 10 (52.6) | 9 (47.4) |
| Age—yrb | |||
| Mean ± SD | 43.1 ± 18.3 | 42.9 ± 12.5 | 51.5 ± 11.5 |
| Median (IQR) | 37.0 | 44 | 51 |
| (28.5–56.0) | (33.0–50.0) | (44.5–56.0) | |
| Range | 18–80 | 20–67 | 33–84 |
| Symptoms—no. (%) | |||
| Fever | 29 (82.9) | 10 (57.8) | 13 (68.4) |
| Cough | 2 (5.7) | 13 (73.7) | 17 (89.5) |
| Diarrhea | 1 (2.9) | 11 (63.2) | 8 (42.1) |
| Fatigue | 1 (2.9) | 8 (47.4) | 8 (42.1) |
| Comorbidities—no. (%) | |||
| Hypertension | 3 (15.8) | 6 (31.6) | |
| Diabetes | 1 (5.3) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Hepatitis B | 2 (10.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Coronary sclerosis | 1 (5.3) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Gastrohelcosis | 1 (5.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Psoatic strain | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Chronic gynecologic inflammation | 1 (5.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Gout | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Asthma | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Chronic renal failure | 1 (5.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Treatment—no. (%) | |||
| Lopinavir and ritonavir | 19 (100.0) | 19 (100.0) | |
| Atomized interferon | 19 (100.0) | 19 (100.0) | |
| Arbidol | 7 (36.8) | 12 (63.2) | |
| Lianhuaqingwen (Chinese traditional medicine) | 16 (84.2) | 17 (89.5) | |
| Ribavirin | 0 (0.0) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Hydroxychloroquine | 1 (5.3) | 3 (15.8) | |
ano.: number.
byr.: year.
Fig. 2Clinical characteristics of the two groups.
a, b Comparative quantification of six antibody categories between the LC and SC groups. Number of samples collected for each week: 10 SC and 8 LC in week 1, 16 SC and 13 LC in week 2, 16 SC and 13 LC in week 3, 11 SC and 15 LC in week 4, 13 SC and 9 LC in week 5, 10 SC and 11 LC in week 6, 8 SC and 5 LC in week 7, 9 SC and 9 LC in week 8, 8 LC in week 9; total samples: 93 from 17 SC patients, and 91 from 19 LC patients. The profiles of the serum anti-S, anti-RBD, and anti-N IgM (a) and IgG (b) between the two groups along time. Orange asterisks mean significant variance over 8–9 time points in the SC group (one-way ANOVA). Purple asterisk means significant variance over 8–9 time points in the LC group (one-way ANOVA). Black asterisks show the interactional difference between time points and LC/SC group (two-way ANOVA). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. c Flow cytometry analysis of immune cells between the SC and LC patients. 22 samples from 17 LC patients and 30 samples from 17 SC patients were analyzed. Flow cytometry analysis of lymphocytes, CD4+ cells and CD127–CD25+ Treg cells of two representative patients (P-value from Welch’s t-test). The bean plots show the comparison between the two groups.
Fig. 3Dynamic proteomics profiling.
a The four clusters of proteins with different expression dynamics for the SC and LC groups computed with Mfuzz analysis (one-way ANOVA, B-H adjusted P-value < 0.05, more details in Supplementary Table S2b). b–d Pathways enrichment by ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) for the proteins in Clusters 1, 2, and 4 of the SC and LC groups. e–g Heatmaps showing the unique proteins of the SC and LC groups in Clusters 1, 2, and 4 (more details in Supplementary Table S2b), as well as the corresponding top two pathways annotated by IPA (P-value < 0.05). Proteins highlighted in red are discussed in the main text. h Pathways enriched by IPA (P-value < 0.05) across the nine weeks (no pathways were enriched for the 3rd, 5th, or 9th weeks) using the differentially expressed proteins between the LC and SC groups (Supplementary Table S2d). The z-score represents the activation state of the pathways: z-score > 0 means the pathway is active, while z-score < 0 indicates that the pathway is inhibited. i The relationship between LXR/RXR and their downstream proteins which uniquely belong to the LC (lipid metabolism-associated proteins) and SC (inflammation response-associated proteins) groups in Cluster 1 (a). Blue: downregulated proteins/metabolites in the LC group at the 1st week; red: upregulated proteins/metabolites in the LC group at the 1st week; gray: no significantly different molecules were found between the two groups at the 1st week. The interactions retrieved from STRING are visualized with Cytoscape.
Fig. 4Dynamic metabolomics profiling.
a Stream graph showing the differentially expressed metabolites, split into four categories (lipid, amino acid, nucleotide, and others), between the SC and LC groups (|Log2(fold change (FC))| > 0.25, Welch’s t-test P < 0.05). A positive number of metabolites represents their upregulation while a negative number represents their downregulation in the LC group. b The sub-classifications of the differentially expressed metabolites in four subcategories (as in a). The length of the circular sector represents the number of metabolites belonging to a sub-pathway. Sub-pathways containing > 1 metabolite are annotated. c The histogram showing that the top three or two dysregulated metabolites between the LC and SC groups in each week. Orange: upregulated metabolites in the LC group; blue: downregulated metabolites in the LC group; |Log2(FC)| > 0.25, Welch’s t-test P < 0.05). d Connection between the differentially expressed metabolites, the time-point, and the enriched KEGG pathways. Left: bubble plot showing the differentially expressed metabolites between the LC and SC groups (FC > 1 represents upregulation, whereas FC < 1 represents downregulation, in the LC group); the size of the bubbles represents the degree of significance of the difference between the LC and SC groups. Middle: the sizes of the circles represent the numbers of the differentially expressed metabolites at each week. Right: KEGG pathways annotated with the deeper background-colored circle. Blue or red rectangles represent downregulated or upregulated metabolites in the LC group, respectively. The interaction plot was generated using MetaboAnalyst.
Fig. 5Integrative analysis of proteome and metabolome.
a Four clusters of proteins with different protein and metabolite expression dynamics for the SC and LC groups computed using Mfuzz (one-way ANOVA, B-H adjusted P-value < 0.05). b Pathways enriched using MetaboAnalyst (P-value < 0.05). c The annotated proteins are shown in the four networks. For each circle, the right/left half panel shows the expression time-series in the LC/SC group (two-way ANOVA; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001). Black asterisks indicate a significant variance over 8–9 time points in the SC or LC groups; the red asterisks represent the difference between the LC and SC groups; the blue asterisks represent the interaction difference between time points and the LC and SC groups. The outermost ring represents the maximum abundance of the proteins/metabolites, between the SC and LC groups, across nine time points for proteins and eight time points for metabolites. The different backgrounds represent the classification of the molecules.
Fig. 6Machine learning model for disease course prediction.
a Workflow for machine learning; RF random forest. b The top ten features selected by the machine learning model. c The ROC of validation dataset (left panel) and independent test dataset (right panel). d, e Performance of the model in the validation (d) and the independent test datasets (e). Orange represents the SC group and purple represents the LC group.