Single-cell RNA-sequencing reveals dysregulation of molecular programs associated with SARS-CoV-2 severity and outcomes in patients with chronic lung disease

Patients with chronic lung disease (CLD) have an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and poor outcomes. Here, we analyzed the transcriptomes of 605,904 single cells isolated from healthy and CLD lungs to identify molecular characteristics of lung cells that may account for worse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with chronic lung diseases. We observed a similar cellular distribution and relative expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry factors in control and CLD lungs. CLD epithelial cells expressed higher levels of genes linked directly to the efficiency of viral replication and innate immune response. Additionally, we identified basal differences in inflammatory gene expression programs that highlight how CLD alters the inflammatory microenvironment encountered upon viral exposure to the peripheral lung. Our study indicates that CLD is accompanied by changes in cell-type-specific gene expression programs that prime the lung epithelium for and influence the innate and adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

MicroRNA Signatures of Colonic Polyps on Screening and Histology.

Colorectal cancer and adenoma adjacent to cancer exhibit distinct microRNA (miRNA) alterations in an apparent mucosa-to-adenocarcinoma sequence. The pattern of microRNAs in screen-detected polyps in relation to histologic features and cancer risk has not been investigated. miRNA expression analysis was performed on normal mucosa (NM), hyperplastic polyps (HP), tubular adenomas (TA), tubulovillous adenomas or high-grade dysplasia (TVHG), and serrated polyps [sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/P) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSA)] in biopsy specimens from 109 patients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy. Generalized linear models were used to identify differentially expressed miRNAs by histologic type and logistic regression to identify miRNA predictors of histopathology. False discovery rate (FDR) was used to control for multiple comparisons. We identified 99 miRNAs differing in at least one of five histopathologic groups (FDR ≤0.05). In a comparison of HPNM versus TVHG, the top most upregulated and downregulated miRNAs in HPNM included miR-145, -143, -107, -194, and -26a (upregulated), and miR-663, -1268, -320b, -1275, and -320b (downregulated; FDR P < 0.05). miR-145 and -619 showed high accuracy to discriminate low- from high-risk polyps without serrated histology (TVHG vs. HPNM + TA; CI, 95.6%), whereas miR-124, -143, and -30a showed high accuracy of separating high-risk polyps (TVHG + TSA) from low-risk polyps (HPNM + TA + SSA/P; CI, 96.0%). For TSAs, miR-125b and -199a were uniquely downregulated relative to HPNMs, and miR-335, -222, and -214 discriminated between non-serrated and serrated histology. Our data support the presence of colorectal cancer-associated miRNA alterations in screen-detected adenomas that may be useful for risk stratification for surveillance interval planning. Cancer Prev Res; 9(12); 942-9. ©2016 AACR.

Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Stool DNA testing is a new approach to colorectal cancer detection. Few data are available from the screening setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare stool DNA and fecal blood testing for detection of screen-relevant neoplasia (curable-stage cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas >1 cm). DESIGN: Blinded, multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Communities surrounding 22 participating academic and regional health care systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 4482 average-risk adults. MEASUREMENTS: Fecal blood and DNA markers. Participants collected 3 stools, smeared fecal blood test cards and used same-day shipment to a central facility. Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) were tested on 3 stools and DNA assays on 1 stool per patient. Stool DNA test 1 (SDT-1) was a precommercial 23-marker assay, and a novel test (SDT-2) targeted 3 broadly informative markers. The criterion standard was colonoscopy. RESULTS: Sensitivity for screen-relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80); sensitivity for cancer plus high-grade dysplasia did not differ among tests. Specificity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.20). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of screen-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of adenomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Among colonoscopically normal patients, the positivity rate was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.030). LIMITATIONS: Stool DNA test 2 was not performed on all subsets of patients without screen-relevant neoplasms. Stools were collected without preservative, which reduced detection of some DNA markers. CONCLUSION: Stool DNA test 1 provides no improvement over HemoccultSensa for detection of screen-relevant neoplasms. Stool DNA test 2 detects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive results in colonoscopically normal patients. Higher sensitivity of SDT-2 was particularly apparent for adenomas.