The impact of genetic variation and cigarette smoke on DNA methylation in current and former smokers from the COPDGene study

<p>DNA methylation can be affected by systemic exposures, such as cigarette smoking and genetic sequence variation; however, the relative impact of each on the epigenome is unknown. We aimed to assess if cigarette smoking and genetic variation are associated with overlapping or distinct sets of DNA methylation marks and pathways. We selected 85 Caucasian current and former smokers with genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping available from the COPDGene study.  Genome-wide methylation was obtained on DNA from whole blood using the Illumina HumanMethylation27 platform. To determine the impact of local sequence variation on DNA methylation (mQTL), we examined the association between methylation and SNPs within 50 kb of each CpG site.  To examine the impact of cigarette smoking on DNA methylation, we examined the differences in methylation by current cigarette smoking status. We detected 770 CpG sites annotated to 708 genes associated at an FDR < 0.05 in the cis-mQTL analysis and 1,287 CpG sites annotated to 1,242 genes, which were nominally associated in the smoking-CpG association analysis (<i>P</i>_unadjusted < 0.05). Forty-three CpG sites annotated to 40 genes were associated with both SNP variation and current smoking; this overlap was not greater than that expected by chance. Our results suggest that cigarette smoking and genetic variants impact distinct sets of DNA methylation marks, the further elucidation of which may partially explain the variable susceptibility to the health effects of cigarette smoking. Ascertaining how genetic variation and systemic exposures differentially impact the human epigenome has relevance for both biomarker identification and therapeutic target development for smoking-related diseases.</p

A linear prognostic score based on the ratio of interleukin-6 to interleukin-10 predicts outcomes in COVID-19

Background: Prognostic tools are required to guide clinical decision-making in COVID-19.Methods: We studied the relationship between the ratio of interleukin (IL)-6 to IL-10 and clinical outcome in 80 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, and created a simple 5-point linear score predictor of clinical outcome, the Dublin-Boston score. Clinical outcome was analysed as a three-level ordinal variable ("Improved", "Unchanged", or "Declined"). For both IL-6:IL-10 ratio and IL-6 alone, we associated clinical outcome with a) baseline biomarker levels, b) change in biomarker level from day 0 to day 2, c) change in biomarker from day 0 to day 4, and d) slope of biomarker change throughout the study. The associations between ordinal clinical outcome and each of the different predictors were performed with proportional odds logistic regression. Associations were run both "unadjusted" and adjusted for age and sex. Nested cross-validation was used to identify the model for incorporation into the Dublin-Boston score.Findings: The 4-day change in IL-6:IL-10 ratio was chosen to derive the Dublin-Boston score. Each 1 point increase in the score was associated with a 5.6 times increased odds for a more severe outcome (OR 5.62, 95% CI -3.22-9.81, P = 1.2 × 10-9). Both the Dublin-Boston score and the 4-day change in IL-6:IL-10 significantly outperformed IL-6 alone in predicting clinical outcome at day 7.Interpretation: The Dublin-Boston score is easily calculated and can be applied to a spectrum of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. More informed prognosis could help determine when to escalate care, institute or remove mechanical ventilation, or drive considerations for therapies.</p

Corrigendum to 'A linear prognostic score based on the ratio of interleukin-6 to interleukin-10 predicts outcomes in COVID-19'

The authors wish to correct a typographical error in the manuscript. In both the abstract and Section 3.4 of the original manuscript, a 1-point increase in the Dublin-Boston score was described as being associated with a 5.6 times increased odds (OR 5.62, 95% CI = 3.229.81, P = 1.2 £ 109 ) for a more severe outcome. While the OR and P-value stated are correct, the CI should instead have read “3.229.81”. The CI listed in Table 3 of the original manuscript, which accompanied Section 3.4, is correct. The authors regret any confusion caused, and appreciate the opportunity to correct this mistake.</div