Response to comment on ‘SARS-CoV-2 suppresses anticoagulant and fibrinolytic gene expression in the lung’

  1. Alan E Mast
  2. Alisa S Wolberg
  3. David Gailani
  4. Michael R Garvin
  5. Christiane Alvarez
  6. J Izaak Miller
  7. Piet Jones
  8. Bruce Aronow
  9. Daniel Jacobson  Is a corresponding author
  1. Versiti Blood Research Institute, Department of Cell Biology Neurobiology and Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin, United States
  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and UNC Blood Research Center, United States
  3. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
  4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, United States
  5. University of Tennessee Knoxville, The Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education, United States
  6. Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Research Foundation, University of Cincinnati, United States

Abstract

Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we compared transcriptome data from hospitalized COVID-19 patients and control patients without COVID-19. We found changes in procoagulant and fibrinolytic gene expression in the lungs of COVID-19 patients (Mast et al., 2021). These findings have been challenged based on issues with the samples (Fitzgerald and Jamieson, 2022). We have revisited our previous analyses in the light of this challenge and find that these new analyses support our original conclusions.

Introduction

As part of the global effort to address the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we support a robust discussion on COVID-19 to provide insight into the biological effect of the virus on humans. Previously, we compared transcriptome data from hospitalized COVID-19 patients to control patients without COVID-19 and found changes in procoagulant and fibrinolytic gene expression in the lungs of COVID-19 patients (Mast et al., 2021). These findings were subsequently challenged based on issues with the samples, including library depth, library preparation, and control group meta-data (FitzGerald and Jamieson, 2022). We have revisited our previous analyses of these two data sets, and we find that they are comparable to one another and support our conclusions. We address each of the criticisms of FitzGerald and Jamieson, 2022 below.

Results

The designation of Michalovich et al. as a “Healthy Control” for differential expression analysis

Fitzgerald and Jamieson have criticized our results based on the fact that the control group is (1) not free of comorbidities, and (2) "not representative of the American population". In accordance with eLife’s transparent reporting procedures, we list group allocation as “Cases were those individuals diagnosed with COVID-19, controls were from a separate study in which participants were not diagnosed with any viral infection”. Our goal of the analysis was to test for differences in the expression of genes in the coagulation pathway in response to infection from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Most of the BALF samples in Michalovich et al. harbored comorbidities such as asthma, nicotine dependence, and obesity. Of the 40 control samples, three were reported to be free of these comorbidities (putatively 'healthy'). We find the criticisms raised are not warranted for the following reasons:

  1. Fitzgerald and Jamieson make the assumption that the patients displaying COVID-19 from which the BALF samples were taken were healthy and had no comorbidities, however, comorbidities increase the risk of hospitalization with severe disease as well as mortality (King et al., 2020). We made no assumptions about the case samples and used what we believe to be a conservative approach by using all 40 control samples. Statistical significance may be more difficult to achieve with greater variance, therefore, only the strongest signals due to infection of the virus would be discovered.

  2. Sub-group analysis can be informative but is vulnerable to Simpson’s paradox, ascertainment bias, and statistical power variability (unequal representation for each sub category). We did not perform a sub-group analysis as this was beyond the scope of the paper and not related to the hypothesis, which as we note above was differences in gene expression due to infection with a virus.

  3. The samples of Michalovich et al. are from Poland and Switzerland, not the United States of America.

Dissimilar library preparation methods of Michalovich et al. (transcriptomic) and Zhou et al. (total RNA) are not comparable

Fitzgerald and Jamieson state that dissimilar library preparation methods of Michalovich et al. (Transcriptomic) and Zhou et al. (Total RNA) are not comparable. Library preparation for the case and control samples was different for the two studies. Michalovich et al. used a polyA enrichment method, which removes most ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and for the 9 cases, total RNA that includes rRNA was prepared. However, the assumption that this makes the samples non-comparable is flawed. Previous work in the field of RNA-Seq analysis has developed tools and techniques to mitigate sources of technical variation, such as library preparation (Risso et al., 2014). Our analysis leveraged TMM normalized counts for the differential analysis, implemented in edgeR. Fitzgerald and Jamieson raise concerns about our differential analysis based on the findings of Zhao et al., 2020. However, Zhao et al. focused on TPM and did not discuss more robust normalization protocols such as TMM or RLE, and thus may not be applicable in this case. To address the concerns of Fitzgerald and Jamieson, we re-calculated log-fold change of the differentially expressed genes from our analysis after removing rRNA counts from the CLC Genomics output. Furthermore, we accounted for factors (k = 1) of putative technical variation using the RUVSeq R package thereby producing an adjusted log-fold change (Risso et al., 2014). As one can see in Figure 1, the log-fold change with rRNA and the adjusted log-fold change without rRNA are highly correlated (R2 ~0.99954).

Correlation between log-fold change with rRNA and the adjusted log-fold change without rRNA (R2 ~0.99954).

In addition, keeping all non-COVID-19 controls helps to resolve the issue where a gene is observed in COVID-19 samples but has few reads in the controls.

Insufficient read depth of samples from Zhou et al.

Fitzgerald and Jamieson state that COVID-19 BALF samples contain insufficient read depth. We acknowledge that there exist “generally accepted rules” for read depth, etc. in the field of transcriptome analysis, and these guidelines are important to adhere to wherever possible. The nine BALF samples used in our analysis were taken from severely ill patients in Wuhan China in an attempt to identify the as-yet-unidentified pathogen causing their symptoms and were not prepared in conjunction with control samples. The low read-depth of the nine BALF samples resulted in high false-positive (off-target) counts due to the presence of Alu elements in some of the transcripts, which can be seen in the read mapping files (Figure 2). To account for this, and to reduce inflation or deflation of expression levels, we used highly stringent mapping parameters in CLC Genomics Workbench. The default parameters for this algorithm are to score a “match” for a read if at least 0.80 of the fragment matches the gene and if the similarity is 0.8 or greater. Instead, to reduce off-target mapping, we used the much more conservative approach of 0.95 length and 0.95 similarity match.

Read mappings to the transcript NM_001993 for the F3 mRNA taken from one of the controls (top) and a case (bottom) used in Mast et al.

Mapping settings were set to mismatch cost = 2, insertion cost = 3, deletion cost = 3, length fraction = 0.95, similarity fraction = 0.95. The Alu element in the 3’UTR (brick), promoter (green), and coding sequence (dark yellow) of the transcript are annotated. Blue read mappings are paired reads that mapped a single time and light yellow are read mappings that aligned to multiple places in the transcriptome (i.e. other genes besides F3).

Given these highly stringent parameters, and the much larger read depth of the control samples, any genes that are expressed in COVID-19 BALF samples, but are not present in controls, have a high probability of being true positives and the fold-increase is likely an underestimate. We report large increases in many cases because the denominator of the controls was zero and therefore fold-change would be infinite. To account for this, we used the lowest number in the matrix of gene counts as the denominator.

Discussion

Fitzgerald and Jamieson state “By far the most notable result reported in Mast et al. is the reported observation that tissue factor, the key initiator of the extrinsic coagulation cascade, is not significantly impacted by SARS-CoV-2 infection”. As noted previously, the presence of Alu elements can provide spurious read mappings in the situation where there are low read counts, as is the case here. Indeed, not only does tissue factor (F3) contain an Alu element in the 3’UTR of the gene, the read mapping file in CLC Genomics Workbench clearly shows for both cases and controls, that the majority of the fragments map to multiple places in the transcriptome (yellow in Figure 2), and cannot be assigned to F3 with confidence. Regardless, in these BALF samples, F3 does not appear to be expressed at the mRNA level in cases or controls to any appreciable level. F3 may be upregulated in other tissues or cell types, or it may also be regulated at the protein and/or activity level, i.e., our analysis does not preclude a role of F3 in the complex pathology of COVID-19. For example, increased tissue factor has been detected by flow cytometry in monocytes and platelet-monocyte aggregates (Hottz et al., 2020) and by confocal microscopy and RT-qPCR in neutrophils (Skendros et al., 2020) from critically ill COVID-19 patients. Interestingly, it has been reported that a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pseudovirus increases tissue factor activity in cells by converting it from an inactive to active form without altering protein expression (“decryption”) (Wang et al., 2021), which is consistent with our results.

In their Discussion the authors state that “the field has begun converging on tissue factor as a key player in the pathogenesis and coagulopathy complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection”. As stated above, we applaud the scientific community for their continued focus on this pathway and we are proud to have contributed to it early in the pandemic. We trust that the community does not think that we claim to have provided a complete and final understanding of COVID-19’s effects in the lungs. Solutions to complex problems are achieved from a consensus of researchers addressing them with multiple approaches, one of which is our study.

Data availability

Previously published data sets with BioProject IDs PRJNA605983 and PRJNA434133 were used.

The following previously published data sets were used

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alan E Mast

    Versiti Blood Research Institute, Department of Cell Biology Neurobiology and Anatomy Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
    Contribution
    Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Alisa S Wolberg and David Gailani
    Competing interests
    receives research funding from Novo Nordisk and has received honoraria for serving on Novo Nordisk advisory boards
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3740-0318
  2. Alisa S Wolberg

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and UNC Blood Research Center, Chapel Hill, United States
    Contribution
    Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Alan E Mast and David Gailani
    Competing interests
    Receives research funding from Takeda and Bristol Myers Squibb
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2845-2303
  3. David Gailani

    Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Contribution
    Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Contributed equally with
    Alan E Mast and Alisa S Wolberg
    Competing interests
    Receives research funding from Bayer and has received honoraria for serving on Anthos, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ionis and Janssen advisory boards
  4. Michael R Garvin

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2204-7569
  5. Christiane Alvarez

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge, United States
    Contribution
    Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  6. J Izaak Miller

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  7. Piet Jones

    University of Tennessee Knoxville, The Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education, Knoxville, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  8. Bruce Aronow

    Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Research Foundation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, United States
    Contribution
    Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  9. Daniel Jacobson

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge, United States
    Contribution
    Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    jacobsonda@ornl.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9822-8251

Funding

No external funding was received for this work.

Senior Editor

  1. Jos W Van der Meer, Radboud University Medical Centre, Netherlands

Reviewing Editor

  1. Noriaki Emoto, Kobe Pharmaceutical University, Japan

Version history

  1. Received: October 25, 2021
  2. Accepted: November 24, 2021
  3. Version of Record published: January 11, 2022 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2022, Mast et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 351
    Page views
  • 32
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Alan E Mast
  2. Alisa S Wolberg
  3. David Gailani
  4. Michael R Garvin
  5. Christiane Alvarez
  6. J Izaak Miller
  7. Piet Jones
  8. Bruce Aronow
  9. Daniel Jacobson
(2022)
Response to comment on ‘SARS-CoV-2 suppresses anticoagulant and fibrinolytic gene expression in the lung’
eLife 11:e74951.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74951

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74951

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Tony Zhang, Matthew Rosenberg ... Markus Meister
    Research Article

    An animal entering a new environment typically faces three challenges: explore the space for resources, memorize their locations, and navigate towards those targets as needed. Here we propose a neural algorithm that can solve all these problems and operates reliably in diverse and complex environments. At its core, the mechanism makes use of a behavioral module common to all motile animals, namely the ability to follow an odor to its source. We show how the brain can learn to generate internal “virtual odors” that guide the animal to any location of interest. This endotaxis algorithm can be implemented with a simple 3-layer neural circuit using only biologically realistic structures and learning rules. Several neural components of this scheme are found in brains from insects to humans. Nature may have evolved a general mechanism for search and navigation on the ancient backbone of chemotaxis.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    David O'Reilly, Ioannis Delis
    Tools and Resources

    The muscle synergy is a guiding concept in motor control research that relies on the general notion of muscles ‘working together’ towards task performance. However, although the synergy concept has provided valuable insights into motor coordination, muscle interactions have not been fully characterised with respect to task performance. Here, we address this research gap by proposing a novel perspective to the muscle synergy that assigns specific functional roles to muscle couplings by characterising their task-relevance. Our novel perspective provides nuance to the muscle synergy concept, demonstrating how muscular interactions can ‘work together’ in different ways: (1) irrespective of the task at hand but also (2) redundantly or (3) complementarily towards common task-goals. To establish this perspective, we leverage information- and network-theory and dimensionality reduction methods to include discrete and continuous task parameters directly during muscle synergy extraction. Specifically, we introduce co-information as a measure of the task-relevance of muscle interactions and use it to categorise such interactions as task-irrelevant (present across tasks), redundant (shared task information), or synergistic (different task information). To demonstrate these types of interactions in real data, we firstly apply the framework in a simple way, revealing its added functional and physiological relevance with respect to current approaches. We then apply the framework to large-scale datasets and extract generalizable and scale-invariant representations consisting of subnetworks of synchronised muscle couplings and distinct temporal patterns. The representations effectively capture the functional interplay between task end-goals and biomechanical affordances and the concurrent processing of functionally similar and complementary task information. The proposed framework unifies the capabilities of current approaches in capturing distinct motor features while providing novel insights and research opportunities through a nuanced perspective to the muscle synergy.