Ageing impairs the airway epithelium defence response to SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Age-dependent differences in the clinical response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is well-documented 1–3 however the underlying molecular mechanisms involved are poorly understood. We infected fully differentiated human nasal epithelium cultures derived from healthy children (1-12 years old), young adults (26-34 years old) and older adults (56-62 years old) with SARS-COV-2 to identify age-related cell-intrinsic differences that may influence viral entry, replication and host defence response. We integrated imaging, transcriptomics, proteomics and biochemical assays revealing age-related changes in transcriptional regulation that impact viral replication, effectiveness of host responses and therapeutic drug targets. Viral load was lowest in infected older adult cultures despite the highest expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry and detection factors. We showed this was likely due to lower expression of hijacked host machinery essential for viral replication. Unlike the nasal epithelium of young adults and children, global host response and induction of the interferon signalling was profoundly impaired in older adults, which preferentially expressed proinflammatory cytokines mirroring the “cytokine storm” seen in severe COVID-19 4,5 . In silico screening of our virus-host-drug network identified drug classes with higher efficacy in older adults. Collectively, our data suggests that cellular alterations that occur during ageing impact the ability for the host nasal epithelium to respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection which could guide future therapeutic strategies.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.437453: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.05.437453: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
