1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes in Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) ..., 2021, Patterson et al (in prep)

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Jaybee00, Jul 21, 2021.

Tags:
  1. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,878
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.25.449905v2


    The recent COVID-19 pandemic is a treatment challenge in the acute infection stage but the recognition of chronic COVID-19 symptoms termed post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) may affect up to 30% of all infected individuals. The underlying mechanism and source of this distinct immunologic condition three months or more after initial infection remains elusive. Here, we investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein in 46 individuals. We analyzed T-cell, B-cell, and monocytic subsets in both severe COVID-19 patients and in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). The levels of both intermediate (CD14+, CD16+) and non-classical monocyte (CD14Lo, CD16+) were significantly elevated in PASC patients up to 15 months post-acute infection compared to healthy controls (P=0.002 and P=0.01, respectively). A statistically significant number of non-classical monocytes contained SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein in both severe (P=0.004) and PASC patients (P=0.02) out to 15 months post-infection. Non-classical monocytes were sorted from PASC patients using flow cytometric sorting and the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was confirmed by mass spectrometry. Cells from 4 out of 11 severe COVID-19 patients and 1 out of 26 PASC patients contained ddPCR+ peripheral blood mononuclear cells, however, only fragmented SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in PASC patients. No full length sequences were identified, and no sequences that could account for the observed S1 protein were identified in any patient. Non-classical monocytes are capable of causing inflammation throughout the body in response to fractalkine/CX3CL1 and RANTES/CCR5.
     
    Jaybee00, Jul 21, 2021
    #1
    Hutan, Michelle and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,432
    Location:
    London, UK
    This reads like someone who has read an immunology textbook but not understood it. I may be getting old but in the days when I was in immunology an abstract like this would get a straight rejection. The sentences aren't even in a sensible order.

    'monocytes were sorted from PASC patients using flow cytometric sorting'. This is a bit like saying I opened the door by opening it. I don't understand how fifteen co-authors did not pick that up.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Jul 21, 2021
    #2
    Ariel, Nightsong, shak8 and 7 others like this.
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Australia
    The authors claim the presence of spike protein fragments in CD16+ Monocytes is due to continued presence of viral genetic material up to 16 months later.

    Unfortunately, they don't provide data for each of the patients (for the test of spike protein containing monocytes). They claim:

    They claim they double checked the findings with six patient samples using chromatography. (no discussion about how those samples were selected out of the overall group)

    In addition, they sequenced samples from five patients (no discussion about how those samples were selected out of the overall group) and they state:

    So there was unlikely to be replication competent virus persisting in patients.

    There were issues:
    I don't want to speculate about this too much since I am not an expert in the methodology, but could there be a risk of contamination leading to these results?

    Some additional speculation by the authors:

     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
    Snow Leopard, Jul 22, 2021
    #3
    Nightsong, alktipping, Michelle and 1 other person like this.
  4. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2021/07/21/patterson-cracked-long-covid/
    Cort's analysis 'Has Bruce Patterson cracked Long Covid?'
     
    Hutan, Jul 22, 2021
    #4
    CRG and Grigor like this.
  5. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Hutan, Jul 22, 2021
    #5
    CRG, alktipping and Michelle like this.
  6. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Having watched a video: Dr Patterson seems to be connected with a network of labs testing Long Covid patients, and clinicians treating them according to his protocol. Even Cort showed skepticism in his write-up, including a question-mark in his article's title. Patterson certainly has attracted a lot of attention.

    I'm a bit concerned by Patterson's suggestion that they can fix the immune system and that is what they are primarily aiming to do - rather then eliminating symptoms. Those patients with ongoing symptoms after treatment are waved away as just suffering the effects of having been sedentary for a long time. So, there's talk of slowly ramping up their activity levels after treatment. With a paradigm like that, it is hard to know if the supposed success of the treatment (i.e. the return of the 'immune system' to something that looks normal) is just the markers of infection declining over time. It sounds as though the patients who don't recover will be assured that the treatment was successful in fixing the immune system and so any failure to recover will be either their fault for not becoming active again, or perhaps will be due to some permanent damage done to the body.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
    Hutan, Jul 22, 2021
    #6
    alktipping, Michelle, Nightsong and 3 others like this.
  7. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Figure 1

    So there are three types of monocytes: classical, intermediate and non-classical. The paper shows three charts (below) relating to each of those subsets, in that order. One key finding from the paper was that populations of intermediate and non-classical monocytes were increased in the long-haulers. Actually, the populations of the monocyte subsets looked quite similar in both of the non-healthy groups.

    Screen Shot 2021-07-22 at 3.23.50 PM.png

    This isn't particularly surprising, given that the intermediate and non-classical monocytes are involved in antigen-presentation. Increases in these two monocyte populations seems to be associated with infections. The healthy participants didn't have an infection, so, yeah... The chart does not show the level of monocyte subsets in people who have had Covid-19 but don't have Long Covid - we need to see that in order to evaluate the idea that levels of monocytes subsets are part of the story of Long Covid pathology.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
    Hutan, Jul 22, 2021
    #7
    alktipping and Michelle like this.
  8. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Figure 3
    (as best I can work out - the charts in Figure 2 are just leading up to the conclusion presented in Figure 3)

    So, here again, there are three charts, with classical monocytes (defined as CD14++ CD16-) on the left;
    intermediate monocytes (defined as CD14+ CD16+) in the middle; and
    non-classical monocytes (defined as CD14lo CD16+) on the right.

    The y axis is a measure of the expression of the CoV-2 S1 protein on the monocyte cells. The three columns in each chart on the x-axis are for healthy controls (HC); patients with severe Covid-19 (severe); and patients with Long Covid (LH).

    Screen Shot 2021-07-22 at 3.35.39 PM.png

    So, it doesn't feel as though we have got to anything ground-breaking yet, as the people who are having or have recently had Covid-19 are the ones whose antigen-presenting monocytes are presenting a CoV-2 antigen. Again, there is no data for people who have had Covid-19 and recovered, or any examination of the effect of time since the illness.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2021
    Hutan, Jul 22, 2021
    #8
    alktipping, Michelle, Jaybee00 and 2 others like this.
  9. Nightsong

    Nightsong Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    153
    Patterson also seems to have been involved in a group called FLCCC, which produced this "treatment protocol" - he is listed as one of the co-authors - which is full of unevidenced claims about MCAS and ivermectin.
     
    Nightsong, Jul 22, 2021
    #9
    Snow Leopard, alktipping, Michelle and 4 others like this.
  10. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,878
    Jaybee00, Jul 22, 2021
    #10
    Nightsong, alktipping, Michelle and 1 other person like this.
  11. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,878
    Jaybee00, Jul 31, 2021
    #11
    Michelle and Grigor like this.
  12. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    The 2022 Klein, Iwasaki paper did a similar analysis, but crucially also with a group of healthy people who had recently had Covid-19 (healthy convalescents).
    [Preprint] Distinguishing features of Long COVID identified through immune profiling, 2022, Klein, Iwasaki et al

    They found a similar increase in non-classical monocytes in people with Long Covid, and there was no increase in the healthy convalescents. So, this looks a lot more interesting, as does the finding of Covid S1 protein in the non-classical monocytes many months after the Covid-19 infection.
     
    Hutan, Apr 4, 2023
    #12
    Michelle and Wyva like this.
  13. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Cort Johnson (in the discussion linked above) says
    The first link is to
    Cellular immune function in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) (2019) Cliff, Nacul et al.
    and it's true that they didn't find different levels of monocytes. But they only looked at CD14+ monocytes, so perhaps they weren't looking specifically at the non-classical monocytes which don't express CD14 much. Possibly we can discount that as evidence against the idea that non-classical monocytes are also altered in ME/CFS (?)
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2023
    Hutan, Apr 4, 2023
    #13
    Wyva likes this.
  14. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,432
    Location:
    London, UK
    The classification of 'non-classical monocytes' leaves me pretty sceptical. There are lots of these so called subset designations. But the crucial work done for me by Vikki Abrahams that led to our identification of targeting mechanisms in RA was on maturation of CD14+CD16- monocytes into CD16+ cells - which become capable of responding to small immune complexes. As far as we were concerned CD16+ cells were just a bit more streetwise having hung around and got some signals for a bit.

    If that is true then we are back to the problem of circulating cell populations possibly showing maturation shifts simple from lasting longer in the blood with general factors like activity levels. Shifts might genuinely reflect some unknown stimuli but this sort of shift in monocyte populations is about as non-specific as you could get I think.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Apr 4, 2023
    #14
    FMMM1 and Hutan like this.
  15. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,826
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    There was the finding of the incorporation of virus, or viral particles, in that group of monocytes, and the idea that that made the monocyte live a lot longer (15 months after infection, so, unless there was a viral reservoir or the particles survived upon cell death, at least that long).

    There was also the finding reported in the Iwasaki paper that this non-classical monocyte group was expressing HLA-DR and CD15, unlike those of the healthy controls.
     
    Hutan, Apr 4, 2023
    #15
    Ariel likes this.
  16. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,432
    Location:
    London, UK
    CD16 monocytes are more likely to pick up virus simply by being older and having the immunoglobulin receptor (CD16) to bind virus complex. They are unlikely to continue in the circulation for more than a few days. All blood monocytes are young cells. They may live for years once they have got to tissue but that is another issue. So as monocytes they must be picking up virus fresh from some other reservoir.

    If our experience is anything to go by people may be getting recurrent re-infection with Covid every few months so presence of virus may not tell us much?

    CD16+ monocytes normally express some DR. Not sure of the relevance of CD15.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Apr 4, 2023
    #16
    FMMM1, Ariel and Hutan like this.

Share This Page