Leukotoxin (LtxA) is a protein secreted from the oral bacterium Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. LtxA binds to the β2 integrin lymphocyte-associated function antigen-1 (LFA-1) on human white blood cells (WBCs), resulting in cell death. LtxA is currently under investigation as a novel therapy (Leukothera®) for treating hematologic malignancies and autoimmune diseases. We show here that LtxA has potent in vivo anti-lymphoma activity in mice. LtxA caused complete regression of B-cell tumors and promoted long-term survival of mice. The mechanism of LtxA-mediated killing of malignant lymphocytes was further examined. We found that LtxA kills malignant lymphocytes by a novel mechanism requiring the death receptor Fas and caspase-8, but not Fas ligand (FasL) or caspase-9. We also determined that LFA-1 and Fas are closely associated on the cell surface and this proximity of LFA-1 and Fas could explain how signaling through an integrin can lead to cell death. In addition to LFA-1, this work reveals a second surface protein, Fas, that is critical for LtxA-mediated cell death. Knowledge of the mechanism of cell death induced by LtxA will facilitate the development and understanding of this potent experimental therapeutic agent.

Introduction. Non-invasive sample collection and viral sterilizing buffers have independently enabled workflows for more widespread COVID-19 testing by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Gap statement. The combined use of sterilizing buffers across non-invasive sample types to optimize sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods has not been directly and systematically compared. Aim. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic yield across different non-invasive samples with standard viral transport media (VTM) versus a sterilizing buffer eNAT- (Copan diagnostics Murrieta, CA) in a point-of-care diagnostic assay system. Methods. We prospectively collected 84 sets of nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva were placed in either VTM or eNAT, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert). The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Results. Swab specimens collected in eNAT showed an overall superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70 % vs 57 %, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5 %, (95 % CI: 82 %, 95 %), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8 %, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.0001) or eNAT (58 %, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases. Conclusion. Saliva and eNAT sterilizing buffer can enhance safe and sensitive detection of COVID-19 using point-of-care GeneXpert instruments.

Saliva has been a COVID-19 diagnostic specimen of interest due to its simple collection, scalability, and yield. Yet COVID-19 testing and estimates of the infectious period remain largely based on nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs. We sought to evaluate whether saliva testing captured prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 and potential infectiousness later in the disease course. We conducted an observational study of symptomatic COVID-19 patients at University Hospital in Newark, NJ. Paired saliva and nasal specimens from 96 patients were analyzed, including longitudinal analysis of paired observations from 28 of these patients who had multiple time-points. Saliva detected significantly more cases of COVID-19 beyond 5 days (86.1% [99/115] saliva vs 48.7% [56/115] nasal, p-value < 0.001), 9 days (79.4% [50/63] saliva vs 36.5% [23/63] nasal, p-value < 0.001) and 14 days (71.4% [20/28] saliva vs 32.1% [9/28] nasal, p-value = 0.010) of symptoms. Additionally, saliva yielded lower cycle thresholds across all time periods, indicative of higher viral loads in saliva. In the longitudinal analysis, a log-rank analysis indicated that the survival curve for saliva was significantly different from the curve for nasal swabs (p<0.001) with a median survival time for saliva of 18 days compared to 13 days for nasal swabs. We additionally performed saliva viral cultures among a similar COVID-19 patient cohort and noted patients with positive saliva viral cultures between 7 to 28 days of symptoms. Findings from this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA persists longer and in higher abundance in saliva compared to nasal swabs, with potential of prolonged propagating virus. Testing saliva may thus increase yield for detecting potentially infectious virus even beyond the first five days of symptomatic COVID-19.

Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.

Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) are innate immune cells and potent producers of interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sars-CoV-2, an RNA virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has taken the lives of more than 400,000 people in the United States. Reports indicate that COVID-19 patients have reduced plasma IFN-α, suggesting a potential use of IFN-α as a disease therapeutic. However, investigations on pDC function and phenotype in COVID-19 patients are needed. We isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells from fifty hospitalized COVID-19 patients. PBMC were stimulated with HSV-1 or Influenza A virus and IFN-α production and phenotype were assessed by flow cytometry. After stimulation, there were fewer IFN-α+ pDC from COVID-19 patients compared to controls. To reduce inflammation, COVID-19 patients may be treated with dexamethasone, a corticosteroid that has negative effects on pDC function. Although there was more impairment of pDC numbers and function in dexamethasone-treated subjects, the pDC dysregulation was also seen prior to dexamethasone treatment. Phenotypically, we identified reduced expression of pDC markers BDCA2 and CD123, and an upregulation of co-stimulatory markers on pDC from COVID-19 patients. We also observed an increased proportion of Ki67+ pDCs, which indicates increased turnover of pDCs during moderate to severe COVID-19 disease. In summary, pDC from COVID-19 patients produce significantly less IFN-α, express costimulatory ligands used to stimulate adaptive immunity, and may be undergoing rapid turnover. Overall, these changes may compromise the antiviral and adaptive immune response or represent pDC exhaustion during SARS-CoV-2 infection.