This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of blood is typically used for gene expression analysis in biomedical research but is still rarely used in clinical practice. In this study, we argue that RNA-seq should be considered a routine diagnostic tool, as it offers not only insights into aberrant gene expression and splicing but also delivers additional readouts on immune cell type composition as well as B-cell and T-cell receptor (BCR/TCR) repertoires. We demonstrate that RNA-seq offers vital insights into a patient's immune status via integrative analysis of RNA-seq data from patients infected with various SARS-CoV-2 variants (in total 240 samples with up to 200 million reads sequencing depth). We compare the results of computational cell-type deconvolution methods (e.g., MCP-counter, xCell, EPIC, quanTIseq) to complete blood count data, the current gold standard in clinical practice. We observe varying levels of lymphocyte depletion and significant differences in neutrophil levels between SARS-CoV-2 variants. Additionally, we identify B and T cell receptor (BCR/TCR) sequences using the tools MiXCR and TRUST4 to show that - combined with sequence alignments and pBLAST - they could be used to classify a patient's disease. Finally, we investigated the sequencing depth required for such analyses and concluded that 10 million reads per sample is sufficient. In conclusion, our study reveals that computational cell-type deconvolution and BCR/TCR methods using bulk RNA-seq analyses can supplement missing CBC data and offer insights into immune responses, disease severity, and pathogen-specific immunity, all achievable with a sequencing depth of 10 million reads per sample.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoffmann et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: