SARS-CoV-2 infected cells trigger an acute antiviral response mediated by Plasmacytoid dendritic cells in mild but not severe COVID-19 patients

Robust activation of pDCs in response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells

Respiratory epithelial cells represent the first infected tissue in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To investigate which hematopoietic cell type is primarily responsible for the IFN- I/λ response against SARS-CoV-2 infection, human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) isolated from healthy donors were cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected human lung-derived cells or exposed to their supernatants (SN). Human alveolar basal epithelial cell lines (Calu-3 cells and A549 cells expressing the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, A549- ACE2 cells) were infected for 48 hours prior to the collection of their SN or cells for incubation or coculture with PBMCs (including pDCs), both for 16-18 hours. We found that PBMCs respond by a robust secretion of IFNα when cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (Figure 1A-B). In contrast, the SN of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells failed to trigger IFNα secretion by PBMCs (Figure 1A-B). As expected from previous publications, SARS-CoV-2- infected cells did not produce themselves detectable level of IFNα (Blanco-Melo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Lucas et al., 2020; Vanderheiden et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2021b; Zhou et al., 2020). Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) are known to robustly produce IFN-I/λ, notably IFNα (Reizis, 2019). In line with this, antibody mediated- depletion of pDCs from PBMCs abolished IFNα secretion in response to co-cultured SARS- CoV-2-infected cells (Figure 1A-B; line PBMC+/pDC-). To further demonstrate that pDCs are the major source of IFNα upon incubation with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, pDCs were immuno-isolated from PBMCs (over 92% purity as we have previously reported (Assil et al., 2019; Decembre et al., 2014)). Purified pDCs potently produced IFNα in response to co- culture with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, but not in the presence of uninfected cells (Figure 1A-B).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. pDCs are the main IFNα producers in response to contact with SARS-CoV-2- infected cells.

Cells were infected by SARS-CoV-2 (indicated as +) or not (indicated as -) two days prior to coculture with PBMCs, pDC-depleted PBMCs and isolated pDCs. Infected cell types included the human alveolar basal epithelial cell lines i.e., Calu-3, A549 cells and NCI-H358 cells (transduced to stably express ACE2, referred to as A549-ACE2 and NCIH358- ACE2 cells, respectively) and Huh7.5.1 cells, as indicated. Statistical analyses of the results were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and and p-values were calculated with Tukey and Kramer test. The significant contrasts are indicated when p-values are: ≤0.05; * and ≤0.005; **. A-B. Quantification of IFNα in the supernatants (SNs) of PBMCs, pDCdepleted PBMCs (indicated as PBMC+/pDC-) and isolated pDCs (PBMC-/pDC+) cocultured with either SARS-CoV-2-infected or uninfected Calu-3 cells (A) or A549-ACE2 cells (B), or treated with 100μl of cell-free SNs collected from SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. Viral titers of SARS-CoV-2: SN≈2.5×105 foci forming units (ffu)/ml, MOI ≈ 1/pDCs. Arrows indicate results below the detection threshold of the IFNα ELISA (i.e., 12.5 pg/ml). Of note, each dot represents one independent experiment (n=4-9) performed distinct healthy donors (and similarly for all experiments presented in the other Figures (see material and methods section). Error bars represent the means ± standard deviation (SD); ind./cocult. = induction/coculture C-D. Quantification by flow cytometry of the frequency of cells positive for the indicated type of IFN (C) and the differentiation markers, CD83 and PD-L1 (D) in cell populations gated as pDC (left bars; i.e., live+ cells, CD11c-, CD123+) and non-pDC PBMCs (right bars; live cells+ CD11c+, CD123-) (see gating strategies in Supplementary Figure S1A). PBMCs were cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected or uninfected A549- ACE2 cells or treated with TLR agonists [31.8 μM R848 and 42.22 μM polyI:C] for 14 to 16 hours. Means ± SD; Dots represent n=10-11 independent experiments/distinct healthy donors. E-F. Quantification of IFNα in SNs of pDCs cocultured with the indicated cell types infected or not by SARS-CoV-2. pDC were cultured with infected cells, either in direct contact (coculture) or physically separated by the semi-permeable membrane of transwell (TW), or treated with SN from the corresponding SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. IFNα concentration was also determined in the SN of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells cultured without pDC (no pDC). Arrows indicate results below the detection threshold of the IFNα ELISA (i.e., 12.5 pg/ml). G. Quantification of IFNα in SN of pDCs cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and Quantification of IFNα in SNs of pDCs cocultured with A549-ACE2 cells or Calu-3 infected or not by SARS-CoV-2. Means ± SD; Dots represent distinct donors in independent experiments, as n=11 and n=15 for A549-ACE2 and Calu-3 cells, respectively

Consistent with these results, we further showed that IFNα producer cells were markedly enriched in the cell population gated as pDC as compared to other hematopoietic cell types (non-pDCs) (Figure 1C and S1A). Furthermore, IFNα expression level per pDC was very elevated (i.e., 2-log increased of mean fluorescence intensity over background; sub-selected as IFNα^hi) (Figure 1C, right panel). Most IFNα−positive pDCs concomitantly produced IFNλ in response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (Figure 1C). Of note, the IFNα response mounted by pDCs in response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells largely exceeded the one elicited by stimulation with TLR agonists i.e., imidazoquinoline compound [R848] and synthetic analog of double-stranded RNA polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid [polyI:C] (Figure 1C).

In contrast, this synthetic agonist led to a more potent upregulation of surface expression of activation markers including the programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and CD83 as compared to coculture with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (Figure 1D). This suggested that the pDC response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells is likely qualitatively distinct from stimulation by soluble agonists, likely because PD-L1 and CD83 are both NF-κB-induced activation markers, and thus involving signaling distinct from the IFN-I/λ response (Antonangeli et al., 2020; Berchtold et al., 2002). Next, we tested whether the sensing of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells required a productive infection of pDCs, using a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 infectious clone expressing mNeongreen reporter (icSARS-CoV-2-mNG (Xie et al., 2020)). No infection of pDCs (defined as CTV⁺-pDCs; Figure S1I) was detected when in contact with icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected A549-ACE2 cells (Figure S1I). However, in the same coculture set up, infection by icSARS-CoV-2-mNG was readily detected in initially uninfected/naive RFP⁺ A549-ACE2 cells, hence proving validation of the efficient viral transmission (Figure S1I). The absence of productive infection of pDCs is consistent with previous observations made with different viruses and might be explained by the specialized function of pDCs for rapid and potent antiviral response leading to abortive infection (Decembre et al., 2014; Onodi et al., 2021; Reizis, 2019; Webster et al., 2018).

Taken together, these results strongly suggest that IFNα is robustly produced only by pDCs via sensing of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and that this sensing most likely induces a specific activation state in pDCs.

Short range sensing of infected cells via cell contact triggers the pDC IFNα response

We observed that cell-free SN from SARS-CoV-2-infected cell types failed to trigger IFNα production by PBMCs (Figure 1A-B) or by purified pDCs (Figure 1E-H), even when used at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 per pDC. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 does not productively infect pDCs (Figure S1I). Distinct from a previous report and to avoid possible misinterpretation due to contamination by cell debris and/or floating cells (Onodi et al., 2021), we selected MOI and incubation time for SARS-CoV-2 infection so that no cytolytic effect was detectable in infected human lung-derived cells when cells and SNs were collected for coculture with pDCs (see Experimental procedures section). To further determine if cell- to-cell contacts were required for the transmission of the immunostimulatory signal to pDCs, we used transwell chambers containing SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and pDCs separated by a 0.4 m permeable membrane. This physical cell separation fully prevented IFNα production by pDCs (Figure 1E-H). Similar results were obtained for pDC stimulated by SARS-CoV-2- infected lung-derived cell lines Calu-3, A549-ACE2, H358-ACE2 as well as Huh7.5.1 cells, confirming that this feature was not cell type restricted (Figure 1E-F and S1D-E). Again, consistently with results shown in Figure 1A-B and previous reports (Blanco-Melo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Lucas et al., 2020; Vanderheiden et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2021b; Zhou et al., 2020), none of the SARS-CoV-2-infected cell types released themselves detectable levels of IFNα (Figure 1E-F).

To further define the mechanisms underlying pDC activation upon contact with SARS-CoV- 2-infected cells, we assessed the implication of cell adhesion complexes in this process. We focused on αL integrin and its ligand Intercellular Adhesion Molecule (ICAM)-1 (also called CD54) (Rothlein et al., 1986), respectively highly expressed by pDCs and by various cell types, guided by previous studies on the regulation of pDCs in other infection contexts (Assil et al., 2019). Antibody-mediated blockade of both α_L integrin and ICAM-1 greatly prevented pDC IFNα production (Figure 1G). The engagement of integrins by their ligands is known to induce local recruitment of the actin network. Notably Arp2/3 complex mediates actin nucleation by recruiting and branching actin filaments within network (DeMali et al., 2002; DeMali et al., 2014; Rotty et al., 2013; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2009). Pharmacological inhibition of Arp2/3 complex impaired IFNα production by pDCs in coculture with SARS- CoV-2-infected cells, in a dose dependent-manner (Figure S1G). This suggested that cell adhesion-induced actin recruitment is likely involved in the structuration of cell contacts. Using specific TLR7 antagonist (i.e., IRS661), we showed that the endosome-localized TLR7 sensor mediates the sensing of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells by pDCs (Figure S1H). Remarkably, similar levels of IFNα secretion were reproducibly obtained for pDCs isolated from the blood of a cohort of healthy donors (Figure 1H; distinct healthy donors as n=11 and n=15 for A549-ACE2 and Calu-3 cells respectively).

Together our results demonstrated that physical contacts between pDCs and SARS-CoV-2- infected cells are required for pDC IFNα production. This contact presumably involves cell adhesion mediated by α_Lintegrin/ICAM-1 complexes and the actin network, and leads to a robust TLR7-dependent IFNα response by the pDCs.

The IFN-I/λ signature observed in patients at early time point of SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with viral clearance

Based on the importance of pDCs as the main cell type producing IFNα in response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, we sought to explore how this herein-uncovered mechanism for potent IFN-I/λ response is modulated in the course of the infection in patients and how it could relate to COVID-19 severity. A longitudinal study of IFN-I/λ response was done with different subsets of patients: i) critically ill, herein referred to as Severe patients, who presented acute respiratory distress syndrome or severe pneumonia at hospital admission and required mechanical ventilation in intensive care units, and ii) patients with mild symptoms (i.e., low-grade fever, cough, malaise, rhinorrhea, sore throat), that group was sub-divided according to the days of sample collection post-symptom onset, i.e., Mild early for the first two weeks and Mild late at the later time points. Of note, most patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive in nasal swab samples by qPCR at sampling time in the Mild early group but not anymore or presenting low viral levels in the Mild late group. All patients and the analyzed time-points are listed in Table 1 and S1, which provides information on the clinic and viral loads in nasal swab samples.

We quantified the IFN-I/λ levels in blood samples of infected patients at the transcriptional level (IFN-I signature by by Nanostring technology) and at the protein level for secreted IFNα, IFNλ 1, IFNγ together with IL-6. Both approaches revealed an elevated IFN-I/λ response at early time points (within the first 10-11 days post-onset of symptoms) for all patients with mild symptoms, that seemed to vanish over time, mirroring the controlled decrease of the viral load (Figure S2A and Table S1). Of note, the level of the pro- inflammatory cytokine IL6 was elevated in Severe patients (Figure S2A and Table S1), in line with the previously reported production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in COVID-19 patients (McGonagle et al., 2020; Vanderbeke et al., 2021).

Overall, the patients experiencing mild infection demonstrated high IFN-I/λ blood levels at early time-points. Furthermore, the inflammatory response appeared to be correlated with disease severity, in agreement with previous reports (Galani et al., 2021; Hadjadj et al., 2020; McGonagle et al., 2020; Vanderbeke et al., 2021).

The responsiveness of pDCs to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells is impaired in infected patients

We then determined the ability of PBMCs isolated from the different groups of patients to respond to ex vivo stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. As our results pointed out the importance of pDCs in the IFN-I/λ response mounted against SARS-CoV-2 infected cells, we primarily analyzed pDCs as well as other cell types selected for their potential to play pivotal first defense against viruses. Especially, the Th1-promoting myeloid/conventional dendritic cell subset (mDC1), which produces IFNλ via TLR3-mediated recognition of viral RNA (Lauterbach et al., 2010; Yoshio et al., 2013) and the Th2-promoting myeloid/conventional DC subset (mDC2) and monocytes i.e., Human Leukocyte Antigen – DR isotype (HLA- DR)⁺CD14⁺populations known to produce proinflammatory cytokines (Bosteels et al., 2020; Leal Rojas et al., 2017; Merad et al., 2013; Mildner and Jung, 2014; Wong et al., 2011). This response was compared to the one induced by agonists. Agonists were selected in accordance with the targeted cell types: TLR7/TLR3 agonist [polyI:C/R848] for pDC (TLR7) and the mDC1 (TLR3), and TLR-4 agonist [lipopolysaccharide; LPS] for mDC2 and HLA- DR⁺CD14⁺ populations. A group of healthy donors comprising similarly treated samples was used as reference. Post-stimulation, we performed a multiparametric flow cytometry analysis to define the profiles of cell surface expression of several activation markers along with intracellular cytokines. These responses were assigned to different pivotal innate immune cells by designing a combined panel of cell type markers, along with the exclusion of other cell types (see gating strategy in Figure S2B).

Principal component analysis (PCA) of the flow cytometry datasets was performed within each cell population and stimulation condition to test whether differences in activation and cytokine expression could be linked to disease severity (Figure 2). PCA allows to reduce high dimensional data into principal components that maximize the variance of the projected data and potentially identify the underlying factors associated with it. In the upper panels (Figure 2), each patient is placed with respect to its distribution in the first two principal components (PCs), which explain most of the data variance. In the lower panels, vectors corresponding to the eigen decomposition of the data covariance matrix are depicted to identify features that explain the observed variance. For pDCs analyzed in the unstimulated condition, the first two principal components (PCs) revealed a differential segregation of the patients: the Severe group (in red), and to some extent mild early group (in purple) were mainly spread across the first PC (which was explained by IFNα, CD80 and PD-L1), while healthy and Mild late individuals were tightly clustered in both PCs (Figure 2A, left panels). An opposite segregation of the patient groups was observed in pDCs when PBMCs were cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. Especially, this stimulation induced a spread across the first PC (mainly driven by IFN /IFNα and CD83 expression) of patients from the Mild and healthy groups, in accordance with the pDC ability to respond to SARS-CoV-2- infected cells (Figure 2A, middle panels). Of note, the healthy individuals were spread across the two PCs, whereas the Mild early and Mild late groups dispersed primarily along the first PCs. On the contrary, individuals from the Severe group were spread across the second PC (driven by CD80 and PD-L1 expression). Regarding pDC response to synthetic agonist, all groups were similarly spread across the first two PCs, while the Severe group was tightly grouped within the second PC (driven by IFNλ expression) (Figure 2A, right panels). These results suggested that pDCs from Severe individuals display differences in activation markers and cytokine expression compared to individuals from all the other groups, especially when stimulated by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. PCA analysis performed on mDC1 subset demonstrated less marked contrast among the patient groups upon stimulation by SARS- CoV-2-infected cells, although the Severe group appeared more tightly grouped across both PCs (Figure 2B; middle panels). Upon agonist stimulation, mDC1 from the Severe group were also tightly grouped within the second PC (driven by IFNλ1, CD83 and PD-L1; Figure 2B; right panels). PCA analyses of mDC2 and HLA-DR⁺CD14⁺ populations revealed no marked contrast across the patient groups in the unstimulated condition and SARS-CoV-2 stimulation, while the Severe individuals tended again to be grouped in agonist stimulation (Figure 2C-D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Innate responsiveness in different hematopoietic cell types issued from infected patients with various COVID severities.

PBMCs issued from the indicated groups of patients (i.e., healthy donors, Severe, Mild early, Mild late, see description of the patients in Table 1 and S1, and Material and Methods section) were cocultured for 14-16 hours with SARS-CoV-2-infected or uninfected A549-ACE2 cells, or treated with agonists [31.8 µM R848 and 42.22 µM polyI:C or 2.04 µM LPS]. Upper panels show PCA analysis in cell populations gated as pDCs (A), mDC1 (B), mDC2 (C) and HLA-DR⁺ CD14⁺ (D). Clustering of the groups of patients was performed by combining the detection of multiple cell surface expressed-differentiation markers and intracellular cytokines. Each dots represent one individual patient sample. Lower panels show the eigen vectors that represent the first and second main components, with indication of the percentage of the variance explained by each principal component.

Taken together, our results highlighted that the contrast between Severe patients and the other groups is more pronounced in pDCs than in other PBMC subsets and upon stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells.

COVID-19 severity primarily associated with a blunted pDC IFNα response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells

We further analyzed the expression of activation markers and cytokines individually at the single-cell level in the defined cell types, focusing first on markers identified as driving forces in the PCA analyses. In keeping with results of Figure 1, the frequency of IFNα ⁺ pDCs greatly increased in response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells in the healthy donor group (Figure 3A, green arrow). In sharp contrast, pDCs from Severe patients failed to be activated by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells as similarly revealed by the detection of IFNα⁺, IFNλ⁺ and CD83⁺ pDC (Figure 3A-C; red bars and arrows). Of note, a strong basal level of pDC IFNα expression was observed in the absence of stimulation for the Severe patients. The response to agonist stimulation was also greatly diminished in pDCs from Severe patients compared to healthy donors and patients with mild symptoms, as shown by the level of activation markers (CD83, CD80 and PD-L1; Figure 3C-E; red arrows).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. pDC responsiveness to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells is impaired in infected patients.

PBMCs issued from the indicated groups of patients (i.e., healthy donors, Severe, Mild early, Mild late, see description of the patients in Table 1 and S1, and Methods section) were cocultured for 14-16 hours with SARS-CoV-2-infected or uninfected A549-ACE2 cells or treated with agonists. A-E. Quantification by multiparametric flow cytometry of the frequency of pDCs as IFNα+/IFNαhi (A) IFNλ1+ (B) and the differentiation markers, CD83, CD80, PD-L1 (C-E) in the cell population gated as pDCs (see gating strategies in Supplementary Figure 2). F-G. Quantification of the frequency of cells positive for IFNλ1 in populations gated as mDC1 (F) and IL6 in populations gated as HLA-DR+ CD14+ monocytes mDC2 and non-mDC2 (G), see gating strategies in Supplementary Figure 2B. The numbers of included patient samples are listed in the Table 1 and S1 (Means ± SD). H. Kinetic analysis of the pDC IFNα+ response to the stimulation in Mild patients (left panel), Severe patients (right panel) and healthy donors (right side of the right panel). Dots for a severe patient, who had anti-IFNα antibody detected in the blood (see description in Table 1, legend) is represented by cercles with yellow-center. Results are presented in intervals in weeks post-onset of the symptoms defined according to week 1 = [1-8]; 2 =]8-15]; 3 =]15-22]; 4 =]22-30].

In line with the results obtained with pDCs, expression of IFNλ1 was barely detectable in the mDC1 subset of Severe patients upon stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells and agonists, comparatively to the other groups (Figure 3F; red arrows). Further, our data showed a potent upregulation of IL6 by HLA-DR⁺CD14⁺ subset upon agonist treatment in Severe patients and Mild early (Figure 3G). HLA-DR⁺CD14⁺ population represents a highly frequent cell subset of non-mDC2 (e.g., among the gated live cells⁺ lin^- HLA-DR⁺: 65.7% are HLA-DR⁺CD14⁺ population and the exclusion of mDC2 represent only 4.85%; Figure S2A). In accordance, a high frequency of IL6⁺ cells was also observed for the non-mDC2 populations (Figure 3G, right panel). Likewise, Severe patients presented an elevated level of blood IL6 (Figure S2A). These results are consistent with the previously reported production of pro-inflammatory cytokines by monocytic cells in patients with severe disease (Hadjadj et al., 2020; Vanderbeke et al., 2021), and provided further insights into the differential responses of other cells.

We thus sought to define the dynamics of the response in COVID-19 patients. First, kinetic analyses in Mild patients revealed an elevated detection of pDC IFNα⁺ levels in absence of stimulation that vanished over time while, relatively, their ability to respond to SARS-COV- 2-infected cells increased at late time-points (Figure 3H, left panel). Basal level of pDC IFNα⁺ (i.e., in absence of stimulation) was also observed for Severe patients and associated to a limited induction in response to SARS-COV-2-infected cells at all analysed time-points (Figure 3H, right panel). Kinetic analysis was performed for a Severe patient, who had anti- IFNα antibody detected in the blood (patient description included in Table 1; legend) (Asano et al., 2021; Bastard et al., 2021a; Bastard et al., 2021b; Bastard et al., 2020; King and Sprent, 2021; Lopez et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020). It showed that the ability of pDC to respond to stimulation was blunted in this patient (Figure 3H, right panel; represented by starts with yellow-center).

Together our results demonstrated that the monocytic subset likely contributes to an exacerbated pro-inflammatory response implying notably IL6 production, but that is presumably not triggered directly by the contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. As opposed, impaired IFN-I/λ response following cell contact with pDCs from Severe patients, including those with anti-IFNα, suggested a ‘silencing/exhaustion’ of pDCs in this context. This might be due to the lack of an amplification-loop by ISG resulting in lower activated state and IFN production by pDCs and to some extent, similarly, IFNα 1 expression by mDC1.

Limited pDC differentiation and cytotoxic activity induced by the contact with SARS- CoV-2-infected cells compared to stimulation by cell-free agonists

As we found that pDC activation is a salient feature that correlates with severe COVID-19, we aimed to determine how the contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells impacts the varied downstream signaling and function of pDCs. First, we analyzed the expression of pDC surface molecules enabling the stimulation of adaptive responses, namely HLA-DR, an MHC class II cell surface receptor driving the activation of CD4⁺ T cells, and the B cell ligand CD70 expressed by pDCs and known to interact with CD27 and to induce proliferation and differentiation of B cells into plasmablast (Shaw et al., 2010). Our results showed that pDCs upregulated both surface molecules in response to contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, although at a lower level compared to stimulation by cell-free virus (influenza virus; flu) and synthetic agonists of TLR7/3 [R848/polyI:C; R/p] and TLR7 [imiquimod; IMQ] (Figure 4A- B). Similarly, surface expression of CD83, an activation marker for antigen presenting cells (Gomez et al., 2004; Li et al., 2019), was induced upon contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cell and jointly expressed with PD-L1 by the same pDC subset (Figure 4C). These results obtained with purified pDCs are in agreement with results obtained with pDCs present in PBMCs and cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (Figure 1D). Of note, SN from SARS-CoV-2-infected cells induced HLA-DR, CD83 and PD-L1 expression, yet not as potently as other soluble agonists (Figure 4A and 4C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. SARS-CoV-2-infected cells induce pDC maturation and phenotypic diversification.

Human pDCs isolated from healthy donors were cocultured with SARSCoV- 2-infected (+) or uninfected (-) A549-ACE2 or Calu-3 cells (indicated as ‘cells’), or were stimulated with 100μl of cell-free SN collected immediately prior coculture from the corresponding SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (viral titers ≈ 2.5×105 ffu/ml - MOI ≈1/pDCs), or were stimulated with influenza virus (flu; viral titers ≈ 107 pfu/ml - MOI ≈ 0.5/pDCs), R848/polyI:C (R/p) or imiquimod (IMQ) for 14-16 hours (stim = stimulation; unst = unstained). A-F Quantification by flow cytometry of HLA-DR Geomean (A) or the frequency of pDCs positive for CD70 (B), PD-L1 and/or CD83 (C), CD2 (D), PD-L1 and/or CD80 (E), PD-L1 and/or CD83 among mTRAIL+ pDCs (F) determined in gated pDCs (live cells+ singulets+ CD123+ BDCA2+, see gating strategy in Supplementary Figure 4A). G. SARS-CoV-2-infected (+) or uninfected (-) A549-ACE2 or Calu-3 cells were cultured alone (i.e., no pDC) or cocultured with pDCs for 14-16 hours. Quantification by flow cytometry of the frequency of gated A549-ACE2 and Calu-3 cells positive for Annexin V and/or 7-AAD. H. icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected A549-ACE2 were cultured alone (no pDC) or cocultured with pDCs in the presence or absence of anti-αLintegrin blocking antibody for 48 hours. Quantification by flow cytometry of the frequency of living cells using live-dead marker in the gated pDCs (stained with CellTraceTM Violet prior to coculture) and infected cells/nonpDC. Bars represent means ± SD; n=3-5 independent experiments using distinct healthy donors. Each dot in panels A-B, D-E represents one independent experiment. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis Global test and p-values were calculated with Tukey and Kramer test; * ≤0.05 and ** ≤0.005.

pDCs are now recognized to be an heterogeneous population composed of subsets endowed with diversified functions (Abbas et al., 2020; Alculumbre et al., 2018; Bryant et al., 2016; Matsui et al., 2009; Onodi et al., 2021; Reizis, 2019; Villani et al., 2017). As stimulation of pDCs can impact the frequency and phenotype of these subsets, we assessed the expression of a set of surface molecules previously assigned to define specific subpopulations of pDCs i.e., CD2, CD5, AXL, CD80 and PD-L1 (Alculumbre et al., 2018; Bryant et al., 2016; Matsui et al., 2009; Onodi et al., 2021; Reizis, 2019; Villani et al., 2017). CD2^hi pDCs have a survival advantage and are able to efficiently trigger proliferation of naive allogenic T cells (Bryant et al., 2016; Matsui et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2017). Stimulation of pDCs by contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells did not impact the frequency of CD2^hi pDCs, and this CD2^hi subset displayed an activation profile similar to the one of CD2^low subset (Figure 4D and S4B). CD2^hi CD5⁺ AXL⁺ pDCs were recently proposed as a defined subset that display limited IFN-I production capacity but can potently activate T cells (Villani et al., 2017). The CD2^hi CD5⁺ AXL⁺ pDCs, which represent a very scarce subpopulation of pDCs (Villani et al., 2017), modestly decreased upon stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, their SN or TLR-agonists, yet whether this intriguing decrease is relative to the activated state of pDCs requires further investigation (Figure S4C). We then addressed the diversification of pDCs into functionally distinct populations defined by PD-L1/CD80 expression. In agreement with previous reports, the stimulation by cell-free agonists and influenza virus triggered the differentiation into both PD-L1⁺CD80⁺ and PD-L1^-CD80⁺ pDC subsets (Alculumbre et al., 2018; Onodi et al., 2021). In sharp contrast, direct contact with SARS- CoV-2-infected cells restricted the differentiation of pDCs towards PD-L1⁺ CD80^- subset (Figure 4E).

Collectively, these results revealed that, unlike activation by cell-free viruses and agonists, direct activation of pDCs by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells restricted their differentiation into specific functional subsets.

We observed that pDCs expressed PD-L1 upon stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. Therefore, we further examined the induction of cytotoxic/immune-suppressive activity of pDCs. In keeping with the previously-reported induction of membrane-bound TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (mTRAIL) expression by pDCs upon viral stimulation (e.g., HIV) (Achard et al., 2017; Colisson et al., 2010; Gandini et al., 2013), we found that mTRAIL was readily co-expressed along with PD-L1 and CD83 upon stimulation by influenza virus and synthetic agonists. Nonetheless, mTRAIL upregulation was more limited upon pDC stimulation by SARS-CoV-2 compared to stimulation by cell free agonist (Figure 4F, total % of the bars). Moreover, the frequencies of Annexin V⁺/7-ADD⁺ apoptotic Calu-3 and A549 cells in cocultures with pDCs were similar between infected (i.e., pDC activation) and uninfected (i.e., no pDC activation) conditions, hence suggesting that mTRAIL expression on activated pDCs did not endow these cells with cytotoxic activity. (Figure 4G). In line with this, the contact with activated pDCs did not markedly impact the viability of the cocultured SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (i.e., when comparing condition with or without the anti-α_L integrin, which inhibits contact and pDC activation), nor the viability of activated pDCs themselves, even when analyzed after 48 hours of coculture (Figure 4H).

Overall, these results showed that activation of pDCs by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells did not induce cytotoxic/immune-suppressive activity, mostly leading to a restricted diversification into functional pDC subsets and likely toward to their ability to robustly produce IFN-I/λ.

pDC activation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells primarily leads to the antiviral state viaIFN-I/λ production

We then sought to examine deeper the signaling pathways at play in pDCs upon activation by coculture with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. TLR7-dependent activation of pDCs can induce a ‘bifurcated’ signaling leading to (1) IFN-I/λ production mostly via IRF7-related signaling and other cytokines and (2) activation molecules via NF-κB-pathway (Reizis, 2019; Webster et al., 2018). We noticed that expression of the activation marker HLA-DR, CD70, CD83, mTRAIL by pDCs was weaker when induced by contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells compared to soluble agonist stimulation (Figure 4).

These markers/proteins are primarily regulated by NF-κB-mediated signaling (Table S3) (Antonangeli et al., 2020; Berchtold et al., 2002). To further define the signaling active in pDCs, we quantified transcripts levels of representative key effectors regulated by IRF/IFN-I signaling (i.e., mxA, isg15 and ifnλ) versus those primarily regulated by NF-κB-pathway (i.e., il-6 and tnfα) (Table S3) (Liu et al., 2017; Mesev et al., 2019). Cocultures of pDCs and SARS-CoV-2-infected cells induced more the IRF7/IFN-I-regulated molecules than the representatives of the NF-κB-pathway (Figure 5A). This was again confirmed by the quantification of secreted cytokines in the cocultures, demonstrating higher levels of IRF7/IFN-I-regulated IFNλ1/2/3 compared to TNFα (Figure 5B compared to 5C). This observation was also in agreement with the high level of secreted IFNα in similar experiments (Figure 1E-H). Of note, no detectable cytokine and low level of transcript upregulation were detected in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells in the absence of pDCs, or when pDCs were stimulated by SARS-CoV-2 SNs. In these assays, the low activation level of the NF-κB-pathway and/or its variability among different infected cell types can be explained by a contribution of the infected cells, as a feedback loop of the response to activated pDCs. Hence, we assessed cytokine expression at single-cell level by flow cytometry in the gated pDCs (Figure S4A). Stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells elicited higher frequency of IFNα+ pDCs compared to TNFα+ pDCs (Figure 5D). Remarkably, almost all TNFα+ pDCs were also IFNα+, possibly implying an activation of the NF-κB-pathway subsequent to IRF7/IFN-I response. Again, this result contrasted with the limited frequency of IFNα+ pDCs in response to cell-free agonist (Figure 5D). Similar analysis performed for IFNα+ combined with IFNλ1+ also revealed that virtually all IFNλ1+ pDCs were IFNα+ (Figure 5E).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Cell-cell contact sensing of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells by pDCs induces a robust production of IFN-I/λ and other cytokines leading to the inhibition of viral spread.

Human pDCs isolated from healthy donors were cocultured with SARS-CoV-2- infected (+) or uninfected (-) cells (panels A-G), or were incubated with 100μl of cell-free SN collected immediately prior to coculture from the corresponding SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (panels B-E), or were stimulated by influenza virus or agonists (panels D and E) (as in Figure 1 and 4). A. Quantification of the induction of ISG (mxA, isg15), type III IFN (ifnλ1) and pro-inflammatory cytokines (il6, tnfA) mRNAs in SARS-CoV-2-infected or uninfected A549-ACE2, Calu3, Huh7.5.1 or 293-ACE2 cells cultured with (pDC) or without pDC (no pDC) by RT-qPCR. Means ± SD; n=3-8 independent experiments using distinct healthy donors; statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis Global test; p-values as * ≤0.05, ** ≤0.005 and *** ≤0.0005 (Tukey and Kramer test). B-C. Quantification of IFNλ1/2/3 (B) and TNFα (C) in SN of pDCs cocultured with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells [Cocult] versus SN, as indicated. Bars represent means ± SD; n=3-14 (left panel) n=2-4 (right panel) independent experiments using distinct healthy donors. (D-E) Quantification by flow cytometry of the frequency of pDCs positive for IFNα and/or TNFα (D) and IFNα and/or IFNλ1 (E). Bars represent means ± SD; n=3-5 independent experiments using distinct healthy donors. F-G. A549-ACE2 cells were infected by icSARS-CoV-2-mNG for 24 hours and then cocultured with isolated pDCs for 48 hours. Cocultured cells were treated or not with anti-αL integrin blocking antibody (10 μg/mL). Viral transmission from icSARS-CoV-2-mNG+-infected cells to RFP+ uninfected cells in cocultures with pDC or without pDCs (no pDC) was quantified by flow cytometry (F) and representative dot plots (G). Results are expressed as the percentage of cells positive for mNeonGreen (mNG+) in the RFP+ (red numbers) and RFP- (green numbers) cell populations. Means ± SD; n=4-5 independent experiments.

Collectively, our data provided evidence that, in contrast to stimulation with cell-free viruses and agonists, the pDC response to contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells is biased towards IRF7-mediated signaling that leads to a robust IFN-I/λ production.

The pDC antiviral response is directed toward the contacting SARS-CoV-2 infected cells

As the response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cell primarily induced IFN-I/λ antiviral signaling, we next aimed to define how the pDC response inhibits viral propagation. pDCs were cocultured for 48 hours with icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected A549-ACE2 cells (mNG⁺) and uninfected A549-ACE2 RFP⁺ cells, and viral spread was quantified by flow cytometry. The results demonstrated that the pDC response readily prevented viral spread from mNG⁺ infected cells to initially uninfected RFP⁺ cells, whilst also slightly diminishing the replication in mNG⁺ infected cells during the coculture incubation time (Figure 5F-G). The inhibition of contact between pDCs and infected cells via blockage of α_L integrin restored viral propagation to levels comparable to those measured in the absence of pDC (Figure 5F- G). This indicated that the establishment of cell-contact via adhesion molecules is required for pDC-mediated antiviral response.

Interestingly, the impact of pDC antiviral response on cells infected prior to coculture was quite modest as compared to the spread to uninfected cells, likely owing to the inhibition of IFN-I/λ signaling by SARS-CoV-2 (Chen et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2020). Therefore, we hypothesized that the reduction could be more potent if infected cells were directly in contact with pDCs as such contact could allow a concentrated antiviral response toward the infected cell. To test this hypothesis, we established an assay of 24 hour-long live-imaging of the coculture of pDCs (stained with CM-Dil; red) and icSARS-CoV-2-mNG infected cells (mNG⁺; green) using spinning-disk confocal microscopy. As depicted by the example of time-sequence imaging (Figure 6A), pDC contact with mNG⁺ infected cells lead to a control of viral replication in the targeted infected cells, reflected by the decreased mNG fluorescent reporter signal. We controlled that these infected cells, although not mNG⁺ anymore, were still physically present by using enhanced fluorescent signal analysis (Figure 6A; lower panels). Viral control by pDCs was seen for pDC/infected cell contacts starting at different time points in the course of the coculture (i.e., up to 14 hours after record onset). Similar analysis performed for several infected cells, either in contact with pDC versus not in contact, revealed that the decrease in viral replication (i.e., mNG fluorescence intensity) was observed only for infected cells directly in contact with pDCs (Figure 6B, 6D-E). Of note, live- tracking of mNG fluorescence intensity performed in infected cells cultured without pDCs, provided the basal level of the mNG fluorescence intensity (done simultaneously with record of coculture with infected cells). This basal level was comparable to the one measured in infected cells cocultured with pDCs that were not in direct contact with the latter (Figure 6C- D). pDCs established long-lasting contact with infected cells i.e., mostly above 10 hours, and accordingly, the diminution of the mNG fluorescence intensity was detected several hours after the onset of contact, likely owing to the time-window needed to decrease viral replication (Figure 6E-F).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. Targeted antiviral activity of pDCs toward SARS-CoV-2-infected cells.

Live imaging of coculture of icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells with pDCs (CM-DiI stained) by spinning-disk confocal analysis. A549-ACE2 cells were infected by icSARS-CoV-2-mNG for 48h prior to coculture with pDCs. A. Representative time-sequence of pDCs (red), tracked using motion automatic tracking plug-in in image J (white line) in contact with icSARS-CoV- 2-mNG-infected cells (green arrow). The time points when pDCs are in contact with infected cells are framed in grey. Bottom panels show same imaging of the seven last time points with enhanced fluorescence signal. B-C. Calculation of mNeongreen fluorescence intensity over time in individual icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells cocultured with pDCs: in contact (green curves) versus not in contact (blue curves) with pDCs (B), and as control/reference, in simultaneously recorded cultures of icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells without pDC (C), using area integrated intensity and mean value (quantification tools in Image J). The time point corresponding to the onset/start of contact is indicated by a red dot. The time point when the contact stated is indicated by red dots. The results are presented as the mNeongreen fluorescence intensity at the indicated time relative to time 0 of record set to 1; n= 5 individually recorded cells analyzed per condition from one representative experiment (and n=10-12 in other experiments). D. Violin plot representation of the decrease of mNeongreen fluorescence intensity (percentage) in icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells in the indicated conditions. Each dot represents one infected cell (n=118); 4 independent experiments. E. Violin plot representations of the contact duration between icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells and pDCs leading to control of viral replication, defined as drop of fluorescence intensity > 50% relative to the initial mNG fluoresent intensity (+) or not (-). F. Violin plot representations of time-lag between the onset of pDC contact and the drop of mNeongreen fluorescence intensity defined as >50% of the initial fluorescence intensity. Each dot represents one individual icSARS-CoV-2-mNG-infected cells in contact with pDCs n=50 (E) and n=25 (F) from 4 independent experiments.

Overall, these results demonstrated that pDCs established sustained contact with SARS-CoV- 2 infected cells via α_Lβ₂integrin/ICAM-1 adhesion complex leading to an efficient antiviral response directed toward the infected cells that shut down viral replication.

pDCs critically control viral replication and the outcome of COVID-19 severity

Insights on several hallmarks of IFN-I/λ pathway as being critical in COVID-19 severity are emanating from recent publications. First, neutralizing autoantibodies against several cytokines and genetic defects affecting the IFN-I pathway have been identified in life- threatening COVID-19, as autosomal disorders of IFN-I immunity and autoantibodies underlie at least 10% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases (Asano et al., 2021; Bastard et al., 2021a; Bastard et al., 2021b; Bastard et al., 2020; King and Sprent, 2021; Lopez et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020). Second, patients with severe diseases exhibit reduced circulating pDCs and low plasma IFN-I/λ levels when compared to mild COVID-19 patients (Hadjadj et al., 2020; Lucas et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2021a). Third, IL-3, which increases innate immunity likely by promoting the recruitment of circulating pDCs into the airways, is reduced in the plasma of patients with high viral load and severity/mortality (Benard et al., 2021). This evidence highlights that several biomarkers of IFN-I/λ response are diminished in COVID-19 patients, and hereby points to pDCs as a primary candidate in the progression of COVID-19. Here, using an original approach to study innate immunity in ex vivo-stimulated PBMCs from COVID19 patients, we report that the functionality of pDCs is markedly blunted in severe patients, as observed upon their stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells as well as other TLR agonists.

pDC effector functions against SARS-CoV-2

pDCs comprise distinct subpopulations capable of varied functions and efficacy levels to mount an IFN-I/λ response (Abbas et al., 2020; Alculumbre et al., 2018; Bryant et al., 2016; Matsui et al., 2009; Onodi et al., 2021; Reizis, 2019; Rhodes et al., 2019; Villani et al., 2017). Viral infections and attendant inflammation potentially impact the frequency and functionality of the distinct pDC subpopulation including effect on pDC renewal (Abbas et al., 2020; Alculumbre et al., 2018; Macal et al., 2018). Such modulations could be imprinted either by the micro-environment via crosstalk with immune cells, or by pDC activation itself.

We now report that neither pDC subpopulation frequencies nor their distinct ability to respond to SARS-CoV-2 are impacted by stimulation and contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. This is illustrated for CD2^low/CD2^hi pDCs that display similar activation profile upon stimulation with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, and the frequency of CD2⁺CD5⁺AXL⁺pDC- like, although their low number limit this analysis.

Interestingly, when comparing stimulations by contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells versus cell-free activators (i.e., viruses and synthetic agonists), we found that the differentiation of pDCs defined by CD80 and/or PD-L1 expression are readily distinguishable depending on the TLR7 inducers. Whilst pDCs diversify towards all the different PD- L1/CD80 subsets upon cell-free stimulation (agonist and virus) in agreement with prior publications (Alculumbre et al., 2018; Onodi et al., 2021), the contact with infected cells restricts their evolution to PD-L1⁺CD80^- subsets. Of note, previous reports suggested that PD-L1⁺CD80^- pDCs are more efficient for IFN-I response compared to the other subsets (Abbas et al., 2020; Alculumbre et al., 2018; Onodi et al., 2021).

In accordance with this phenotype, the contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected cells induces a IRF7/IFN-I/κ prioritized signaling in pDCs, while passively excluding NF-κB-mediated responses. The ‘bifurcated’ signaling in TLR7-activated pDCs can occur independently toward either IFN-I/ production or NF- B activation leading to pro-inflammatory cytokines and activation markers. This bifurcation of signaling is expected to be dependent on the sub- cellular compartment in which the TLRs encounter activating signal: activation in early endosomes induces IFN-I while activation in endolysosomes triggers NF-κB mediated signaling (Combes et al., 2017; Reizis, 2019). We previously reported that, in the context of

other viral infections (i.e., Dengue, Chikungunya, Hepatitis C, Zika viruses), contact with infected cells similarly induced a IRF7/IFN-I/λ prioritized signaling in activated pDCs, as opposed to incubation of pDCs with cell-free viruses (Assil et al., 2019; Webster et al., 2018). Of note, we also show that stimulation of pDCs by cell-free SARS-CoV-2 supernatants induced the upregulation of some activation markers (e.g., HLA-DR, PD-L1), in accordance with other reports (Alculumbre et al., 2018; Onodi et al., 2021), but elicited virtually no IFN-I/λ response. We propose that the signaling downstream of TLR7, including the phosphorylation cascade might be impacted by cell polarity and physical contact with infected cells (Olayioye et al., 2013; Saitoh et al., 2017). Further studies will aim at addressing this question.

Cross-regulation of immune responses

Progression to severe COVID-19 predominates in elderly patients, advanced age being a factor suspected to aggravate disease progression and to weaken innate immunity, potentially including pDC responsiveness (Feng et al., 2021; Jing et al., 2009). This is in accordance with the demographic analysis of our COVID-19 cohort, as the age-ranges were 63.5-year- old [interquartile of 48.0-73.0] and 40.5-year-old [24-57] for Severe and Mild patients, respectively. The patient history and genetic factors can explain the differential ability of pDCs from patients to mount a response against SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, as illustrated by the heterogeneous immune responses of patients, with critical anomalies in functionality of pDC in severe COVID-19. Here, a kinetic analysis performed on a COVID-19 patient that presents auto-antibodies against IFNα (Bastard et al., 2021a; Bastard et al., 2021b; Bastard et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2021) show that the responsiveness of pDCs to stimulation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells was blunted. Future study is needed to expand this interesting preliminary observation, which already indicates that the IFN-I/λ response can reinforce via a positive feedforward regulation the pDC antiviral function.

Of note, comparison of responses across patients with different COVID-19 severities suggest that pDC response to SARS-CoV-2-infected cells inversely correlates with an exacerbated inflammatory response (as illustrated by IL6 production by monocytic cells) and a basal level IFN-I/λ and inflammation activity. It is tempting to speculate that the progressive enrichment of proinflammatory cytokines in the lung micro-environment can imprint pDC responsiveness. In this scenario, an excessive elicitation of pDC would lead to their functional ‘silencing’. Future study is needed to elucidate the underlining mechanism that could lead to such ‘exhausted’ pDCs, as reminiscent of the findings of impaired pDC function in a distinct infection context (Macal et al., 2018). In turn, the deficit of the antiviral control at the infected site owing to exhausted pDCs can then feedback as fuel for uncontrolled viral replication leading to more lung inflammation. Altogether our results thus highlighted possible cross-regulation between immune cells in the course of COVID-19.

Concluding remarks: importance for SARS-COV2 and possible insight for predictive markers

SARS-CoV-2 is a still-ongoing worldwide health threat, currently causing a significant human and economic burden and exacerbated by divergence into more severe variants. We provide compelling evidence that pDCs are a key cell type in the initiation of antiviral responses against SARS-CoV-2. Further, this study identified the failure of pDC response as critical in COVID-19 severity. Moving forward our finding shall provide guidelines for predictive biomarkers, as associated with pDC responsiveness to SARS-CoV-2 infections and background IFN-I/λ response at different stages of disease. Furthermore, strategies to boost the pDC response, and especially their recruitment to the lung, can lead to the development of potential therapeutics against pulmonary viral infections, including SARS-COV-2.