Kynurenic acid underlies sex-specific immune responses to COVID-19

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has poorer clinical outcomes in males compared to females, and immune responses underlie these sex-related differences in disease trajectory. As immune responses are in part regulated by metabolites, we examined whether the serum metabolome has sex-specificity for immune responses in COVID-19. In males with COVID-19, kynurenic acid (KA) and a high KA to kynurenine (K) ratio was positively correlated with age, inflammatory cytokines, and chemokines and was negatively correlated with T cell responses, revealing that KA production is linked to immune responses in males. Males that clinically deteriorated had a higher KA:K ratio than those that stabilized. In females with COVID-19, this ratio positively correlated with T cell responses and did not correlate with age or clinical severity. KA is known to inhibit glutamate release, and we observed that serum glutamate is lower in patients that deteriorate from COVID-19 compared to those that stabilize, and correlates with immune responses. Analysis of Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) data revealed that expression of kynurenine aminotransferase, which regulates KA production, correlates most strongly with cytokine levels and aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation in older males. This study reveals that KA has a sex-specific link to immune responses and clinical outcomes, in COVID-19 infection.

Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs

Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to be used as assay standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used (1) RNA transcript standards, (2) full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, (3) pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, and (4) clinical samples from COVID-19 patients to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of the qRT-PCR primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 virus copies per reaction, except for the RdRp-SARSr (Charite) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity. Our findings characterize the limitations of currently used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.