4.8 Article

A diagnostic host response biosignature for COVID-19 from RNA profiling of nasal swabs and blood

Journal

SCIENCE ADVANCES
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe5984

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R01HL105704, R33AI29077, R38HL143581, R01CA249054, R01NS076465]
  2. Abbott Laboratories
  3. Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance
  4. Citadel Foundation
  5. WorldQuant Foundation
  6. Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RNA sequencing analysis showed a muted immune response in COVID-19 patients, with differences in pathological responses between hospitalized and outpatient patients. Machine learning can aid in the accurate identification of COVID-19 disease.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), has emerged as the cause of a global pandemic. We used RNA sequencing to analyze 286 nasopharyngeal (NP) swab and 53 whole-blood (WB) samples from 333 patients with COVID-19 and controls. Overall, a muted immune response was observed in COVID-19 relative to other infections (influenza, other seasonal coronaviruses, and bacterial sepsis), with paradoxical down-regulation of several key differentially expressed genes. Hospitalized patients and outpatients exhibited up-regulation of interferon-associated pathways, although heightened and more robust inflammatory responses were observed in hospitalized patients with more clinically severe illness. Two-layer machine learning-based host classifiers consisting of complete (>1000 genes), medium (<100), and small (<20) gene biomarker panels identified COVID-19 disease with 85.1-86.5% accuracy when benchmarked using an independent test set. SARS-CoV-2 infection has a distinct biosignature that differs between NP swabs and WB and can be leveraged for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available