Lung Interstitial Macrophages Can Present Soluble Antigens and Induce Foxp3+ Regulatory T Cells.

Lung macrophages constitute a sophisticated surveillance and defense system that contributes to tissue homeostasis, host defense, and allows the host to cope with the myriad of insults and antigens to which the lung mucosa is exposed. As opposed to alveolar macrophages, lung interstitial macrophages express high levels of type 2 major histocompatibility complex (MHC-II), a hallmark of antigen-presenting cells. Here, we showed that lung IMs, like dendritic cells (DCs), possess the machinery to present soluble antigens in an MHC-II-restricted way. Using ex vivo ovalbumin (OVA)-specific T cell proliferation assays, we found that OVA-pulsed IMs could trigger OVA-specific CD4+ T cell proliferation and Foxp3 expression via MHC-II-, IL-10 and Tgfß-dependent mechanisms. Moreover, we showed that IMs efficiently captured locally instilled antigens in vivo, did not migrate to the draining lymph nodes and enhanced local interactions with CD4+ T cells in a model of OVA-induced allergic asthma. These results support that IMs can present antigens to CD4+ T cells and trigger regulatory T cells, which might attenuate lung immune responses and have functional consequences for lung immunity and T-cell-mediated disorders.

University population-based prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity (SARSSURV-ULiège): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For a safe and sustainable return to normal functioning of academic activities in higher education, objective-driven testing strategies that are flexible and rapidly adaptable are essential to effectively monitor and respond to new developments of the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, prospective longitudinal research on SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in saliva and seroprevalence in higher education contexts is substantially lacking, limiting our understanding of COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and nature of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 at various stages of the infection and vaccination. To address this lack of evidence, a prospective population-based cohort study (SARSSURV-ULiège) has recently been started. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Students (n=1396) and staff members (n=1143) of the University of Liège are followed up over more than 1 year. All participants are required to complete anamnestic, clinical and vaccine hesitancy questionnaires for medical histories and undertaken treatments. Previous proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection is also registered. In phase 1, weekly saliva samples to perform RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 and monthly COVID-19 serological rapid test results are collected. Once being positive to either saliva RT-qPCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 presence or to serological test, the participant is invited to enter phase 2. If participants get vaccinated during the study period, they are invited to phase 2. In this second phase, besides weekly saliva self-test, depending on the participants' profiles, both gargle and blood samples are collected to obtain various biological data to measure the presence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, determine the magnitude and the duration of antibody responses over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received the approval from the University Hospital of Liège Ethics Committee (reference number 2021/96, dated 26 March 2021). Potential protocol amendments will be presented to the Research Ethics Committee. The findings of the present study will be presented at scientific conferences and the results published in peer-review publications. Weekly reports will be submitted to the risk assessment group and the risk management group against COVID-19 of the university to enable a timely public health action if necessary.

In-Depth Longitudinal Comparison of Clinical Specimens to Detect SARS-CoV-2.

The testing and isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are indispensable tools to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PCR tests are considered the "gold standard" of COVID-19 testing and mostly involve testing nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Our study aimed to compare the sensitivity of tests for various sample specimens. Seventy-five participants with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs, oropharyngeal swabs, Oracol-collected saliva, throat washes and rectal specimens were collected along with pooled swabs. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to correlate specific clinical symptoms and the symptom duration with the sensitivity of detecting COVID-19 in various sample specimens. Sampling was repeated after 7 to 10 days (T2), then after 14 to 20 days (T3) to perform a longitudinal analysis of sample specimen sensitivity. At the first time point, the highest percentages of SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were observed for nasopharyngeal samples (84.3%), while 74%, 68.2%, 58.8% and 3.5% of throat washing, Oracol-collected saliva, oropharyngeal and rectal samples tested positive, respectively. The sensitivity of all sampling methods except throat wash samples decreased rapidly at later time points compared to the first collection. The throat washing method exhibited better performance than the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab at the second and third time points after the first positive test date. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the most sensitive specimens for early detection after symptom onset. Throat washing is a sensitive alternative method. It was found that SARS-CoV-2 persists longer in the throat and saliva than in the nasopharynx.