Chemokines, soluble PD-L1, and immune cell hyporesponsiveness are distinct features of SARS-CoV-2 critical illness.

Critically ill patients manifest many of the same immune features seen in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including both "cytokine storm" and "immune suppression." However, direct comparisons of molecular and cellular profiles between contemporaneously enrolled critically ill patients with and without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited. We sought to identify immune signatures specifically enriched in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19. We enrolled a multisite prospective cohort of patients admitted under suspicion for COVID-19, who were then determined to be SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 204) or -negative (n = 122). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher plasma levels of CXCL10, sPD-L1, IFN-γ, CCL26, C-reactive protein (CRP), and TNF-α relative to SARS-CoV-2-negative patients adjusting for demographics and severity of illness (Bonferroni P value < 0.05). In contrast, the levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-17A were not significantly different between the two groups. In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, higher plasma levels of sPD-L1 and TNF-α were associated with fewer ventilator-free days (VFDs) and higher mortality rates (Bonferroni P value < 0.05). Lymphocyte chemoattractants such as CCL17 were associated with more severe respiratory failure in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, but less severe respiratory failure in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients (P value for interaction < 0.01). Circulating T cells and monocytes from SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects were hyporesponsive to in vitro stimulation compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative subjects. Critically ill SARS-CoV-2-positive patients exhibit an immune signature of high interferon-induced lymphocyte chemoattractants (e.g., CXCL10 and CCL17) and immune cell hyporesponsiveness when directly compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. This suggests a specific role for T-cell migration coupled with an immune-checkpoint regulatory response in COVID-19-related critical illness.

A simple strategy for sample annotation error detection in cytometry datasets.

Mislabeling samples or data with the wrong participant information can affect study integrity and lead investigators to draw inaccurate conclusions. Quality control to prevent these types of errors is commonly embedded into the analysis of genomic datasets, but a similar identification strategy is not standard for cytometric data. Here, we present a method for detecting sample identification errors in cytometric data using expression of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I alleles. We measured HLA-A*02 and HLA-B*07 expression in three longitudinal samples from 41 participants using a 33-marker CyTOF panel designed to identify major immune cell types. 3/123 samples (2.4%) showed HLA allele expression that did not match their longitudinal pairs. Furthermore, these same three samples' cytometric signature did not match qPCR HLA class I allele data, suggesting that they were accurately identified as mismatches. We conclude that this technique is useful for detecting sample-labeling errors in cytometric analyses of longitudinal data. This technique could also be used in conjunction with another method, like GWAS or PCR, to detect errors in cross-sectional data. We suggest widespread adoption of this or similar techniques will improve the quality of clinical studies that utilize cytometry.