Defective type I interferon immunity is associated with increasing COVID-19 severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Host immunity to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is highly variable, dictating diverse clinical outcomes ranging from asymptomatic to severe disease and death. We previously reported that reduced blood type I interferon (IFN-I) in severe COVID-19 patients preceded clinical worsening. These results were supported by studies which identified genetic mutations in loci of the TLR3- or TLR7-dependent IFN-I pathways, or autoantibodies neutralizing IFNα or IFNω, as major risk factors for development of severe and critical COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we analyzed a range of IFN-I associated responses in patient cohorts with different severities of COVID-19, showing that baseline plasma IFNα measures differed significantly according to the immunoassay used, as well as timing of sampling, the IFNα subtype measured, and the presence of autoantibodies. We then compared immune responses induced by ex vivo stimulation between non-hospitalized moderate cases (n=27) and hospitalized (n=17) adult patients that required oxygen supplementation. This showed a consistently reduced induction of IFN-I proteins in hospitalized COVID-19 patients upon stimulation, that was not associated with detectable neutralizing autoantibodies against IFNα or IFNω. We confirmed the poor induction of IFN-I in an independent patient cohort (n=33), and showed it was more pronounced with severe disease. Intracellular proteomic analysis showed that while monocyte numbers were increased in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they did not secrete IFN-I in response to stimulation. This was further confirmed by ex vivo whole blood stimulation with IFN-I which induced a transcriptomic response associated with inflammation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, that was not seen in controls or non-hospitalized moderate cases. These results may explain the dichotomy of the poor clinical response to IFN-I based treatments in late stage COVID-19, despite the critical importance of IFN-I in early acute infection. An improved understanding of such variable responses to treatment may help to identify potential alternative therapeutic strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".