4.7 Article

Transcriptomic similarities and differences in host response between SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101947

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the gene expression changes in COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 viral infections and identified 416 genes specific to COVID-19. It also found that in COVID-19, the proportions of CD56(bright) natural killer cells and M2 macrophages increased, providing insights into the pathophysiology of the host response to SARS-CoV-2.
The pandemic 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) shares certain clinical characteristics with other acute viral infections. We studied the whole-blood transcriptomic host response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using RNAseq from 24 healthy controls and 62 prospectively enrolled patients with COVID-19. We then compared these data to non-COVID-19 viral infections, curated from 23 independent studies profiling 1,855 blood samples covering six viruses (influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human rhinovirus (HRV), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), Ebola, dengue). We show gene expression changes in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 viral infections are highly correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.001). However, we also found 416 genes specific to COVID-19. Inspection of top genes revealed dynamic immune evasion and counter host responses specific to COVID-19. Statistical deconvolution of cell proportions maps many cell type proportions concordantly shifting. Discordantly increased in COVID-19 were CD56(bright) natural killer cells and M2 macrophages. The concordant and discordant responses mapped out here provide a window to explore the pathophysiology of the host response to SARS-CoV-2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available