Exposure to avian coronavirus vaccines is associated with increased levels of SARS-CoV-2-cross-reactive antibodies.

BACKGROUND Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. METHODS We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. RESULTS A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared with pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. CONCLUSION We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings may be useful for further studies on the adaptive immunity against COVID-19

Exposure to avian coronavirus vaccines is associated with increased levels of SARS-CoV-2-cross-reactive antibodies

Background: Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. Methods: We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. Results: A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared with pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. Conclusion: We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings may be useful for further studies on the adaptive immunity against COVID-19. Keywords: COVID-19; IBV; SARS-CoV-2; cross-reactivity; neutralizatio

Applying new biotechnologies to the study of occupational cancer--a workshop summary.

As high-throughput technologies in genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics evolve, questions arise about their use in the assessment of occupational cancers. To address these questions, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the American Chemistry Council sponsored a workshop 8-9 May 2002 in Washington, DC. The workshop brought together 80 international specialists whose objective was to identify the means for best exploiting new technologies to enhance methods for laboratory investigation, epidemiologic evaluation, risk assessment, and prevention of occupational cancer. The workshop focused on identifying and interpreting markers for early biologic effect and inherited modifiers of risk

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health. Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507–514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.140914

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance's potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ?glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential?. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected

Experimental rhinovirus infection induces an antiviral response in circulating B cells which is dysregulated in patients with asthma

Background Rhinoviruses are the predominant cause of respiratory viral infections and are strongly associated with asthma exacerbations. While humoral immunity plays an important role during virus infections, cellular aspects of this response are less well understood. Here, we investigated the antiviral response of circulating B cells upon experimental rhinovirus infection in healthy individuals and asthma patients. Methods We purified B cells from experimentally infected healthy individuals and patients with asthma and subjected them to total RNA-sequencing. Rhinovirus-derived RNA was measured in isolated B cells using a highly sensitive PCR. B cells were stimulated with rhinovirus in vitro to further study gene expression, expression of antiviral proteins and B-cell differentiation in response rhinovirus stimulation. Protein expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in response to rhinovirus was assessed using a proximity extension assay. Results B cells isolated from experimentally infected subjects exhibited an antiviral gene profile linked to IFN-alpha, carried viral RNA in vivo and were transiently infected by rhinovirus in vitro. B cells rapidly differentiated into plasmablasts upon rhinovirus stimulation. While B cells lacked expression of interferons in response to rhinovirus exposure, co-stimulation with rhinovirus and IFN-alpha upregulated pro-inflammatory cytokine expression suggesting a potential new function of B cells during virus infections. Asthma patients showed extensive upregulation and dysregulation of antiviral gene expression. Conclusion These findings add to the understanding of systemic effects of rhinovirus infections on B-cell responses in the periphery, show potential dysregulation in patients with asthma and might also have implications during infection with other respiratory viruses.ISSN:0105-4538ISSN:1398-999

Experimental rhinovirus infection induces an antiviral response in circulating B cells which is dysregulated in patients with asthma

Background Rhinoviruses are the predominant cause of respiratory viral infections and are strongly associated with asthma exacerbations. While humoral immunity plays an important role during virus infections, cellular aspects of this response are less well understood. Here, we investigated the antiviral response of circulating B cells upon experimental rhinovirus infection in healthy individuals and asthma patients. Methods We purified B cells from experimentally infected healthy individuals and patients with asthma and subjected them to total RNA-sequencing. Rhinovirus-derived RNA was measured in isolated B cells using a highly sensitive PCR. B cells were stimulated with rhinovirus in vitro to further study gene expression, expression of antiviral proteins and B-cell differentiation in response rhinovirus stimulation. Protein expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in response to rhinovirus was assessed using a proximity extension assay. Results B cells isolated from experimentally infected subjects exhibited an antiviral gene profile linked to IFN-alpha, carried viral RNA in vivo and were transiently infected by rhinovirus in vitro. B cells rapidly differentiated into plasmablasts upon rhinovirus stimulation. While B cells lacked expression of interferons in response to rhinovirus exposure, co-stimulation with rhinovirus and IFN-alpha upregulated pro-inflammatory cytokine expression suggesting a potential new function of B cells during virus infections. Asthma patients showed extensive upregulation and dysregulation of antiviral gene expression. Conclusion These findings add to the understanding of systemic effects of rhinovirus infections on B-cell responses in the periphery, show potential dysregulation in patients with asthma and might also have implications during infection with other respiratory viruses

Loss of regulatory capacity in Treg cells following rhinovirus infection

BACKGROUND Respiratory infections with rhinoviruses (RV) are strongly associated with development and exacerbations of asthma, and they pose an additional health risk for subjects with allergy. OBJECTIVE How RV infections and chronic allergic diseases are linked and what role RV plays in the breaking of tolerance in regulatory T (Treg) cells is unknown. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effects of RV on Treg cells. METHODS Treg cells were isolated from subjects with asthma and controls after experimental infection with the RV-A16 (RV16) and analyzed with next-generation sequencing. Additionally, suppression assays, quantitative PCR assays, and protein quantifications were performed with Treg cells after in vitro RV16 infection. RESULTS RV16 induced a strong antiviral response in Treg cells from subjects with asthma and controls, including the upregulation of IFI44L, MX1, ISG15, IRF7, and STAT1. In subjects with asthma, the inflammatory response was exaggerated and showed a dysregulated immune response compared with that in the controls. Furthermore, subjects with asthma failed to upregulate several immunosuppressive molecules such as CTLA4 and CD69, and they upregulated the inflammasome-related genes PYCARD and AIM2. Additionally, RV16 reduced the suppressive capacity of Treg cells from healthy subjects and subjects with asthma in vitro and increased T$_{H}$2 cell-type cytokine production. CONCLUSIONS Treg cells from healthy subjects and subjects with asthma displayed an antiviral response after RV infection and showed reduced suppressive capacity. These data suggest that Treg cell function might be altered or impaired during RV infections, which might play an important role in the association between RV and the development of asthma and asthma exacerbations