Faculty Bibliography

The agr quorum-sensing system links Staphylococcus aureus metabolism to virulence, in part by increasing bacterial survival during exposure to lethal concentrations of H₂O₂, a crucial host defense against S. aureus. We now report that protection by agr surprisingly extends beyond post-exponential growth to the exit from stationary phase when the agr system is no longer turned on. Thus, agr can be considered a constitutive protective factor. Deletion of agr resulted in decreased ATP levels and growth, despite increased rates of respiration or fermentation at appropriate oxygen tensions, suggesting that Δagr cells undergo a shift towards a hyperactive metabolic state in response to diminished metabolic efficiency. As expected from increased respiratory gene expression, reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulated more in the agr mutant than in wild-type cells, thereby explaining elevated susceptibility of Δagr strains to lethal H₂O₂ doses. Increased survival of wild-type agr cells during H₂O₂ exposure required sodA, which detoxifies superoxide. Additionally, pretreatment of S. aureus with respiration-reducing menadione protected Δagr cells from killing by H₂O₂. Thus, genetic deletion and pharmacologic experiments indicate that agr helps control endogenous ROS, thereby providing resilience against exogenous ROS. The long-lived 'memory' of agr-mediated protection, which is uncoupled from agr activation kinetics, increased hematogenous dissemination to certain tissues during sepsis in ROS-producing, wild-type mice but not ROS-deficient (Cybb

SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses. Our study presents a comprehensive multimodal single-cell analysis of blood from COVID-19 patients and healthy volunteers receiving the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and booster. We profiled immune responses via transcriptional analysis and lymphocyte repertoire reconstruction. COVID-19 patients displayed an enhanced interferon signature and cytotoxic gene upregulation, absent in vaccine recipients. B and T cell repertoire analysis revealed clonal expansion among effector cells in COVID-19 patients and memory cells in vaccine recipients. Furthermore, while clonal αβ T cell responses were observed in both COVID-19 patients and vaccine recipients, expansion of clonal γδ T cells was found only in infected individuals. Our dataset enables side-by-side comparison of immune responses to infection versus vaccination, including clonal B and T cell responses. Our comparative analysis shows that vaccination induces a robust, durable clonal B and T cell responses, without the severe inflammation associated with infection.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses. Our study presents a comprehensive multimodal single-cell analysis of blood from COVID-19 patients and healthy volunteers receiving the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and booster. We profiled immune responses via transcriptional analysis and lymphocyte repertoire reconstruction. COVID-19 patients displayed an enhanced interferon signature and cytotoxic gene upregulation, absent in vaccine recipients. B and T cell repertoire analysis revealed clonal expansion among effector cells in COVID-19 patients and memory cells in vaccine recipients. Furthermore, while clonal αβ T cell responses were observed in both COVID-19 patients and vaccine recipients, expansion of clonal γδ T cells was found only in infected individuals. Our dataset enables side-by-side comparison of immune responses to infection versus vaccination, including clonal B and T cell responses. Our comparative analysis shows that vaccination induces a robust, durable clonal B and T cell responses, without the severe inflammation associated with infection.

Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses. A number of studies have described immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, beyond antibody production, immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines remain largely uncharacterized. Here, we performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine. Phenotypic and transcriptional profiling of immune cells, coupled with reconstruction of the B and T cell antigen receptor rearrangement of individual lymphocytes, enabled us to characterize and compare the host responses to the virus and to defined viral antigens. While both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells. Importantly, the divergence in immune subsets engaged, the transcriptional differences in key immune populations, and the differences in maturation of adaptive immune cells revealed by our analysis have far-ranging implications for immunity to this novel pathogen.

BACKGROUND:Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS:We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS:Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Effective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:enteritis prevalence, severity, and potential risk factors are unknown. Methods/UNASSIGNED:stool testing after colectomy. We compared CDE cases to controls using multivariable analysis to identify potential CDE risk factors. Results/UNASSIGNED:enteritis presented with severe disease half of the time, with 81.8% requiring hospitalization. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:enteritis often presents as severe disease and frequently requires hospitalization.