Modulation of Arbovirus Infection by Mosquito Saliva

Arboviruses constitute a major public health problem; in particular mosquito-borne arboviruses that continuously emerge and re-emerge. Arbovirus infection of mammals is enhanced by the presence of a mosquito-bite at the inoculation site, or by the co-inoculation of extracted mosquito saliva alongside virus, in comparison to virus experimentally administered by needle inoculation in the absence of bite/saliva. Host responses elicited against saliva appear to be key in facilitating this enhancement. As such, we have studied the mechanistic basis for these observations by investigating mosquito-bite factors, as well as host responses, involved in facilitating viral enhancement. Using an in vivo mouse model we demonstrate that salivary microbiota does not modulate virus infection. Instead proteinaceous salivary factors inside saliva is responsible for enhancing virus infection. We have studied whether saliva from different mosquito species successfully enhance virus infection. Interestingly, while saliva from Aedes genus enhance virus infection, An.gambiae saliva does not. This could partly explain why An.gambiae mosquitos are unsuitable vectors for transmitting most arboviruses. By comparing the effects that saliva from these different species have at the inoculation-site, we have further specified which inflammatory responses modulate arbovirus infection in the skin. Using an in vivo mouse-model we demonstrate that An.gambiae causes significantly less oedema than Ae.aegypti and that histamine induced oedema in the absence of salivary-factors also enhances infection. Also, measuring cytokine responses to Aedes and Anopheles saliva, showed that several key anti-viral chemokines such as CCL5 were significantly more upregulated by Anopheles. Hence, we’re providing important insights into how mosquito saliva modulates infection. A better understanding of this will aid the development of anti-viral treatments targeting factors within the mosquito bite that are common to many distinct infections

Evidence of differences in cellular regulation of Wolbachia-mediated viral inhibition between alphaviruses and flaviviruses

The intracellular bacterium Wolbachia is increasingly being utilised in control programs to limit the spread of arboviruses by Aedes mosquitoes. Achieving a better understanding of how Wolbachia strains can reduce viral replication/spread could be important for the long-term success of such programs. Previous studies have indicated that for some strains of Wolbachia, perturbations in lipid metabolism and cholesterol storage are vital in Wolbachia-mediated antiviral activity against the flaviviruses dengue and Zika; however, it has not yet been examined whether arboviruses in the alphavirus group are affected in the same way. Here, using the reporters for the alphavirus Semliki Forest virus (SFV) in Aedes albopictus cells, we found that Wolbachia strains wMel, wAu and wAlbB blocked viral replication/translation early in infection and that storage of cholesterol in lipid droplets is not key to this inhibition. Another alphavirus, o’nyong nyong virus (ONNV), was tested in both Aedes albopictus cells and in vivo in stable, transinfected Aedes aegypti mosquito lines. The strains wMel, wAu and wAlbB show strong antiviral activity against ONNV both in vitro and in vivo. Again, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (2HPCD) was not able to rescue ONNV replication in cell lines, suggesting that the release of stored cholesterol caused by wMel is not able to rescue blockage of ONNV. Taken together, this study shows that alphaviruses appear to be inhibited early in replication/translation and that there may be differences in how alphaviruses are inhibited by Wolbachia in comparison to flaviviruses

Differences in proteome perturbations caused by the Wolbachia strain wAu suggest multiple mechanisms of Wolbachia-mediated antiviral activity.

All datasets used for the named publication. Including Prism files used to produce graphs, images and cellprofile files used to measure spots in cells

Mosquito saliva enhances virus infection through sialokinin-dependent vascular leakage

Viruses transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes are an increasingly important global cause of disease. Defining common determinants of host susceptibility to this large group of het-erogenous pathogens is key for informing the rational design of panviral medicines. Infection of the vertebrate host with these viruses is enhanced by mosquito saliva, a complex mixture of salivary-gland-derived factors and microbiota. We show that the enhancement of infection by saliva was dependent on vascular function and was independent of most antisaliva immune responses, including salivary microbiota. Instead, the Aedes gene product sialokinin mediated the enhancement of virus infection through a rapid reduction in endothelial barrier integrity. Sialokinin is unique within the insect world as having a vertebrate-like tachykinin sequence and is absent from Anopheles mosquitoes, which are incompetent for most arthropod-borne viruses, whose saliva was not proviral and did not induce similar vascular permeability. Therapeutic strategies targeting sialokinin have the potential to limit disease severity following infection with Aedes mosquito-borne viruses.</p

Differences in proteome perturbations caused by the Wolbachia strain wAu suggest multiple mechanisms of Wolbachia-mediated antiviral activity

Some strains of the inherited bacterium Wolbachia have been shown to be effective at reducing the transmission of dengue virus (DENV) and other RNA viruses by Aedes aegypti in both laboratory and field settings and are being deployed for DENV control. The degree of virus inhibition varies between Wolbachia strains. Density and tissue tropism can contribute to these differences but there are also indications that this is not the only factor involved: for example, strains wAu and wAlbA are maintained at similar intracellular densities but only wAu produces strong DENV inhibition. We previously reported perturbations in lipid transport dynamics, including sequestration of cholesterol in lipid droplets, with strains wMel/wMelPop in Ae. aegypti. To further investigate the cellular basis underlying these differences, proteomic analysis of midguts was carried out on Ae. aegypti lines carrying strains wAu and wAlbA: with the hypothesis that differences in perturbations may underline Wolbachia-mediated antiviral activity. Surprisingly, wAu-carrying midguts not only showed distinct proteome perturbations when compared to non-Wolbachia carrying and wAlbA-carrying midguts but also wMel-carrying midguts. There are changes in RNA processing pathways and upregulation of a specific set of RNA-binding proteins in the wAu-carrying line, including genes with known antiviral activity. Lipid transport and metabolism proteome changes also differ between strains, and we show that strain wAu does not produce the same cholesterol sequestration phenotype as wMel. Moreover, in contrast to wMel, wAu antiviral activity was not rescued by cyclodextrin treatment. Together these results suggest that wAu could show unique features in its inhibition of arboviruses compared to previously characterized Wolbachia strains

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council

Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background: Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded. Findings: We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59–84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus. Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, and NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London

Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background: Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded. Findings: We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59–84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus. Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, and NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London