A host-based two-gene model for the identification of bacterial infection in general clinical settings

High Serum S100A12 as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Severity, Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria Superinfection and Herpes Simplex Virus Reactivation in COVID-19

Neutrophils are critical immune cells in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). S100 calcium-binding protein A12 (S100A12) is highly expressed in neutrophils during acute inflammation. The aim of this study was to evaluate serum S100A12 levels as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in COVID-19. Serum samples of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 were collected during 2020 to 2024. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to measure serum S100A12 levels in 63 patients with moderate COVID-19, 60 patients with severe disease and 33 healthy controls. Serum S100A12 levels were elevated in moderate COVID-19 compared to controls and were even higher in severe cases. In moderate disease, serum S100A12 levels positively correlated with immune cell counts. While C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are established inflammation markers, they did not correlate with serum S100A12 levels in either patient cohort. Patients with severe COVID-19 and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) infection had increased S100A12 levels. Elevated S100A12 levels were also observed in patients with herpes simplex reactivation. Fungal superinfections did not alter S100A12 levels. These data show that serum S100A12 increases in moderate and severe COVID-19 and is further elevated by VRE bloodstream infection and herpes simplex reactivation. Therefore, S100A12 may serve as a novel biomarker for severe COVID-19 and an early diagnostic indicator for bacterial and viral infections.

Quantitative and Longitudinal Assessment of Systemic Innate Immunity in Health and Disease Using a 2D Gene Model

Dysregulation of innate immunity is deeply involved in infectious and autoimmune diseases. For a better understanding of pathogenesis and improved management of these diseases, it is of vital importance to implement convenient monitoring of systemic innate immunity. Built upon our previous works on the host transcriptional response to infection in peripheral blood, we proposed a 2D gene model for the simultaneous assessment of two major components of systemic innate immunity, including VirSig as the signature of the host response to viral infection and BacSig as the signature of the host response to bacterial infection. The revelation of dysregulation in innate immunity by this 2D gene model was demonstrated with a wide variety of transcriptome datasets. In acute infection, distinctive patterns of VirSig and BacSig activation were observed in viral and bacterial infection. In comparison, both signatures were restricted to a defined range in the vast majority of healthy adults, regardless of age. In addition, BacSig showed significant elevation during pregnancy and an upward trend during development. In tuberculosis (TB), elevation of BacSig and VirSig was observed in a significant portion of active TB patients, and abnormal BacSig was also associated with a longer treatment course. In cystic fibrosis (CF), abnormal BacSig was observed in a subset of patients, and no overall change in BacSig abnormality was observed after the drug treatment. In systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD), significant elevation of VirSig and BacSig was observed in some patients, and treatment with a drug led to the further deviation of BacSig from the control level. In systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), positivity for the anti-Ro autoantibody was associated with significant elevation of VirSig in SLE patients, and the additive effect of VirSig/BacSig activation was also observed in SLE patients during pregnancy. Overall, these data demonstrated that the 2D gene model can be used to assess systemic innate immunity in health and disease, with the potential clinical applications including patient stratification, prescription of antibiotics, understanding of pathogenesis, and longitudinal monitoring of treatment response.

Hypoxia and Activation of Neutrophil Degranulation-Related Genes in the Peripheral Blood of COVID-19 Patients

Severe COVID-19 is characterized by systematic hyper-inflammation and subsequent damage to various organs. Therefore, it is critical to trace this cascade of hyper-inflammation. Blood transcriptome has been routinely utilized in the interrogation of host immune response in COVID-19 and other infectious conditions. In this study, consensus gene dysregulation in the blood was obtained from 13 independent transcriptome studies on COVID-19. Among the up-regulated genes, the most prominent functional categories were neutrophil degranulation and cell cycle, which is clearly different from the classical activation of interferon signaling pathway in seasonal flu. As for the potential upstream causal factors of the atypical gene dysregulation, systemic hypoxia was further examined because it is much more widely reported in COVID-19 than that in seasonal flu. It was found that both physiological and pathological hypoxia can induce activation of neutrophil degranulation-related genes in the blood. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients with different requirement for oxygen intervention showed distinctive levels of gene expression related to neutrophil degranulation in the whole blood, which was validated in isolated neutrophils. Thus, activation of neutrophil degranulation-related genes in the blood of COVID-19 could be partially attributed to hypoxia. Interestingly, similar pattern was also observed in H1N1 infection (the cause of Spanish flu) and several other severe respiratory viral infections. As for the molecular mechanism, both HIF-dependent and HIF-independent pathways have been examined. Since the activation of neutrophil degranulation-related genes is highly correlated with disease severity in COVID-19, early detection of hypoxia and active intervention may prevent further activation of neutrophil degranulation-related genes and other harmful downstream hyper-inflammation. This common mechanism is applicable to current and future pandemic as well as the severe form of common respiratory infection.

Systematic review of host genomic biomarkers of invasive bacterial disease: Distinguishing bacterial from non-bacterial causes of acute febrile illness

Background

Infectious diseases play a significant role in the global burden of disease. The gold standard for the diagnosis of bacterial infection, bacterial culture, can lead to diagnostic delays and inappropriate antibiotic use. The advent of high- throughput technologies has led to the discovery of host-based genomic biomarkers of infection, capable of differentiating bacterial from other causes of infection, but few have achieved validation for use in a clinical setting.

Methods

A systematic review was performed. PubMed/Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from inception up to 30/03/2022 with forward and backward citation searching of key references. Studies assessing the diagnostic performance of human host genomic biomarkers of bacterial infection were included. Study selection and assessment of quality were conducted by two independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was undertaken using a diagnostic random-effects model. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021208462).

Findings

Seventy-two studies evaluating the performance of 116 biomarkers in 16,216 patients were included. Forty-six studies examined TB-specific biomarker performance and twenty-four studies assessed biomarker performance in a paediatric population. The results of pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of genomic biomarkers of bacterial infection were 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.82), 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.88), 0.18 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.21), 5.5 (95% CI 4.9 to 6.3), 30.1 (95% CI 24 to 37), respectively. Significant between-study heterogeneity (I² 77%) was present.

Interpretation

Host derived genomic biomarkers show significant potential for clinical use as diagnostic tests of bacterial infection however, further validation and attention to test platform is warranted before clinical implementation can be achieved.

Funding

No funding received.

Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination

Background

Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.

Methods

This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.

Results

Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69–0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1–398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months–1 year and 2–11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.

Conclusions

In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature’s size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01025-x.