Frontiers in immunology · 2023
Epigenetic immune monitoring for COVID-19 disease course prognosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samans Björn, Rosselló Chornet Marta, Rosselló Chornet Araceli, Jung Janine, Schildknecht Konstantin, Lozza Laura, Alos Zaragoza Lourdes, Hernández Laforet Javier, Babel Nina, Olek Sven
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The course of COVID-19 is associated with severe dysbalance of the immune system, causing both leukocytosis and lymphopenia. Immune cell monitoring may be a powerful tool to prognosticate disease outcome. However, SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects are isolated upon initial diagnosis, thus barring standard immune monitoring using fresh blood. This dilemma may be solved by epigenetic immune cell counting.
METHODS: In this study, we used epigenetic immune cell counting by qPCR as an alternative way of quantitative immune monitoring for venous blood, capillary blood dried on filter paper (dried blood spots, DBS) and nasopharyngeal swabs, potentially allowing a home-based monitoring approach.
RESULTS: Epigenetic immune cell counting in venous blood showed equivalence with dried blood spots and with flow cytometrically determined cell counts of venous blood in healthy subjects. In venous blood, we detected relative lymphopenia, neutrophilia, and a decreased lymphocyte-to-neutrophil ratio for COVID-19 patients (n =103) when compared with healthy donors (n = 113). Along with reported sex-related differences in survival we observed dramatically lower regulatory T cell counts in male patients. In nasopharyngeal swabs, T and B cell counts were significantly lower in patients compared to healthy subjects, mirroring the lymphopenia in blood. Naïve B cell frequency was lower in severely ill patients than in patients with milder stages.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the analysis of immune cell counts is a strong predictor of clinical disease course and the use of epigenetic immune cell counting by qPCR may provide a tool that can be used even for home-isolated patients.
METHODS: In this study, we used epigenetic immune cell counting by qPCR as an alternative way of quantitative immune monitoring for venous blood, capillary blood dried on filter paper (dried blood spots, DBS) and nasopharyngeal swabs, potentially allowing a home-based monitoring approach.
RESULTS: Epigenetic immune cell counting in venous blood showed equivalence with dried blood spots and with flow cytometrically determined cell counts of venous blood in healthy subjects. In venous blood, we detected relative lymphopenia, neutrophilia, and a decreased lymphocyte-to-neutrophil ratio for COVID-19 patients (n =103) when compared with healthy donors (n = 113). Along with reported sex-related differences in survival we observed dramatically lower regulatory T cell counts in male patients. In nasopharyngeal swabs, T and B cell counts were significantly lower in patients compared to healthy subjects, mirroring the lymphopenia in blood. Naïve B cell frequency was lower in severely ill patients than in patients with milder stages.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the analysis of immune cell counts is a strong predictor of clinical disease course and the use of epigenetic immune cell counting by qPCR may provide a tool that can be used even for home-isolated patients.