Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(19):e151777. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.151777.
Abstract
BACKGROUND SARS-CoV-2 infection induces mucin overexpression, further promoting disease. Given that mucins are critical components of innate immunity, unraveling their expression profiles that dictate the course of disease could greatly enhance our understanding and management of COVID-19.METHODS Using validated RT-PCR assays, we assessed mucin mRNA expression in the blood of patients with symptomatic COVID-19 compared with symptomatic patients without COVID-19 and healthy controls and correlated the data with clinical outcome parameters. Additionally, we analyzed mucin expression in mucus and lung tissue from patients with COVID-19 and investigated the effect of drugs for COVID-19 treatment on SARS-CoV-2–induced mucin expression in pulmonary epithelial cells.RESULTS We identified a dynamic blood mucin mRNA signature that clearly distinguished patients with symptomatic COVID-19 from patients without COVID-19 based on expression of MUC1, MUC2, MUC4, MUC6, MUC13, MUC16, and MUC20 (AUCROC of 91.8%; sensitivity and specificity of 90.6% and 93.3%, respectively) and that discriminated between mild and critical COVID-19 based on the expression of MUC16, MUC20, and MUC21 (AUCROC of 89.1%; sensitivity and specificity of 90.0% and 85.7%, respectively). Differences in the transcriptional landscape of mucins in critical cases compared with mild cases identified associations with COVID-19 symptoms, respiratory support, organ failure, secondary infections, and mortality. Furthermore, we identified different mucins in the mucus and lung tissue of critically ill COVID-19 patients and showed the ability of baricitinib, tocilizumab, favipiravir, and remdesivir to suppress expression of SARS-CoV-2–induced mucins.CONCLUSION This multifaceted blood mucin mRNA signature showed the potential role of mucin profiling in diagnosing, estimating severity, and guiding treatment options in patients with COVID-19.FUNDING The Antwerp University Research and the Research Foundation Flanders COVID-19 funds.
Authors
Annemieke Smet, Tom Breugelmans, Johan Michiels, Kevin Lamote, Wout Arras, Joris G. De Man, Leo Heyndrickx, Anne Hauner, Manon Huizing, Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Martin Lammens, An Hotterbeekx, Samir Kumar-Singh, Aline Verstraeten, Bart Loeys, Veronique Verhoeven, Rita Jacobs, Karolien Dams, Samuel Coenen, Kevin K. Ariën, Philippe G. Jorens, Benedicte Y. De Winter
Usage data is cumulative from February 2024 through February 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 413 | 278 |
| 51 | 62 | |
| Figure | 129 | 10 |
| Table | 12 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 26 | 3 |
| Citation downloads | 43 | 0 |
| Totals | 674 | 353 |
| Total Views | 1,027 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
