Fluid shear stress-modulated chromatin accessibility reveals the mechano-dependency of endothelial SMAD1/5-mediated gene transcription.

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling and fluid shear stress (FSS) mediate complementary functions in vascular homeostasis and disease development. It remains to be shown whether altered chromatin accessibility downstream of BMP and FSS offers a crosstalk level to explain changes in SMAD-dependent transcription. Here, we employed ATAC-seq to analyze arterial endothelial cells stimulated with BMP9 and/or FSS. We found that BMP9-sensitive regions harbor non-palindromic GC-rich SMAD-binding elements (GGCTCC) and 69.7% of these regions become BMP-insensitive in the presence of FSS. While GATA and KLF transcription factor (TF) motifs are unique to BMP9- and FSS-sensitive regions, respectively, SOX motifs are common to both. Finally, we show that both SOX(13/18) and GATA(2/3/6) family members are directly upregulated by SMAD1/5. These findings highlight the mechano-dependency of SMAD-signaling by a sequential mechanism of first elevated pioneer TF expression, allowing subsequent chromatin opening to eventually providing accessibility to novel SMAD binding sites.

Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. METHODS: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. RESULTS: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals.

Performance of 20 rapid antigen detection tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants using a clinical specimen panel from January 2022, Berlin, Germany.

BackgroundThere are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens.MethodsWe tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany.ResultsWe observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants.ConclusionOur findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.