Deafferentation of Olfactory Bulb in Subjects Dying with COVID-19

Cécilia Tremblay, Thomas G. Beach, Anthony J. Intorcia, Jessica E. Walker, Richard A. Arce, Lucia I. Sue, Courtney M. Nelson, Claryssa I. Borja, Katsuko E. Suszczewicz, Madison P. Cline, Spencer J. Hemmingsen, Sanaria H. Qiji, Marc Desforges, Geidy E. Serrano
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268119

ABSTRACT

There have been clinical descriptions of diverse neurological effects in COVID-19 disease, involving up to 36% of patients. It appears likely that most of these are not caused by viral brain invasion but by systemic accompaniments of critical illness such as coagulopathy, deleteriously upregulated immune response, autoimmune mechanisms, hypoxia or multiorgan failure. Anosmia or hyposmia is present in a majority of COVID-19 patients, and there is early and severe involvement of the nasopharyngeal mucosa and olfactory epithelium. Preliminary studies by our group have found massive gene expression changes in olfactory bulb, but the magnitude of these changes are not different between subjects with detectable versus non-detectable olfactory bulb SARS-CoV-2 RNA. As spontaneous discharge of olfactory epithelial afferents dictates intra-olfactory bulb neurophysiological activity and connectivity, we hypothesized that olfactory bulb deafferentation during COVID-19 is responsible for a large fraction of our observed olfactory bulb transcriptional changes. As the olfactory marker protein (OMP-1) is a specific marker of olfactory epithelial afferents to the olfactory bulb and is severely depleted in animal model lesions of olfactory epithelium, we quantified OMP-1-immunoreactivity in the olfactory bulb of subjects dying with or without COVID-19. Additionally, we quantified olfactory bulb tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), which is often also reduced after olfactory epithelium lesions, and SNAP-25, a pan-synaptic marker. COVID-19 cases (n = 18) were generally elderly and were not significantly different in age or gender distribution from the non-COVID-19 cases (n = 28). Both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases had a wide range of neuropathological diagnoses. The area occupied by OMP-1 immunoreactivity in COVID-19 cases was significantly less, about 60% of that in control cases but amongst subjects with COVID-19, there was no significant difference between OBT-SARS-CoV-2-PCR-positive and negative cases. There were no significant group differences for TH or SNAP-25, supporting a selective effect for OMP-1. We suggest that olfactory dysfunction, and some of the COVID-19-associated transcriptional changes that we have reported for the olfactory bulb and amygdala, may be due to olfactory bulb deafferentation and subsequent transsynaptic effects. Additionally, animal models of olfactory bulb deafferentation or bulbectomy indicate a possibility for widespread changes in interconnected brain regions, providing a possible substrate for diverse post-acute COVID-19 neurological sequelae.

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of pandemic severe respiratory disease, termed COVID-19, but there have additionally been clinical descriptions of diverse neurological effects, involving up to 36% of patients 1-10. What remains unclear is whether these are caused by viral brain invasion or by systemic accompaniments of critical illness such as coagulopathy, deleteriously upregulated immune response, autoimmune mechanisms, hypoxia or multiorgan failure 11.

More than 20 published studies 11-31 have utilized RT-PCR methods to determine the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomic fragments in postmortem brain, and although results have been variable, the most likely conclusion is that SARS-CoV-2 brain invasion occurs in only a smaller fraction of subjects, viral copy numbers are low, and proof of in situ viral CNS replication or protein synthesis is lacking 13,31-35.

Anosmia or hyposmia is present in many COVID-19 patients 36-38 and clinical, autopsy and animal model evidence has pointed to early and severe involvement of the nasopharyngeal mucosa and olfactory epithelium27,31,36,39-45. The olfactory epithelium includes olfactory sensory neurons that project directly through the perforated cribriform plate to the intracranial olfactory bulb, making this pathway a major candidate for brain entry. Of studies localizing SARS-CoV-2 RNA in multiple brain regions of deceased COVID-19 subjects, olfactory bulb has been found to be the single most-involved area31,46. Preliminary studies by our group have found massive gene expression changes in olfactory bulb47, with lesser but still marked changes in the amygdala, one of its main projection targets. The magnitude of these changes, however, are not different between subjects with detectable versus non-detectable olfactory bulb SARS-CoV-2 RNA. As spontaneous discharge of olfactory epithelial afferents dictates intra-olfactory bulb neurophysiological activity and connectivity48-50, we hypothesized that deafferentation during COVID-19 is responsible for the majority of our observed olfactory bulb transcriptional changes. As the olfactory marker protein (OMP-1) is a specific marker of olfactory epithelial afferents to the olfactory bulb51-53 and is severely depleted in animal model lesions of olfactory epithelium48,54-57, we quantified OMP-1-immunoreactivity in the olfactory bulb of subjects dying with or without COVID-19. Additionally, we quantified olfactory bulb tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) 54,55,58, which is often also reduced after olfactory epithelium lesions, and SNAP-25, a pan-synaptic marker.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Human Subjects and Characterization

The COVID-19 subjects were derived from Banner Sun Health Research Institute (BSHRI) in Sun City, Arizona (n =18). Ethical approval for autopsy and subsequent research was obtained for all subjects through Institutional Review Board-approved protocols and informed consent documents (Western IRB, Puyallup, WA; protocols 1132516 and 20201852). Clinical and neuropathological results for some of the COVID-19 cases are described in our prior publications 46,47 and the complete set of cases used in the present study is summarized in Table 1. All COVID-19 subjects had positive clinical diagnostic test results for SARS-CoV-2 and all were considered to have died acutely or subacutely in 2020 or early 2021 as a result of COVID-19. An additional 28 cases were chosen from 2018, 2019 and 2020 non-COVID-19 BSHRI autopsies, including 13 cases with autopsy-proven non-COVID-19 pneumonia and 15 cases without autopsy evidence of pneumonia. Non-COVID-19 status was determined by autopsy occurrence prior to the COVID-19 US arrival (2018 and 2019 autopsies) or, for 2020 and 2021 cases, by a negative postmortem nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test conducted in a CLIA-approved laboratory.

View this table:
Table 1.

Case data. Olf. Bulb SCV2 = PCR-+ for SARS-CoV-2 in olfactory bulb; AcInf = Acute or subacute infarction or ischemic-hypoxic histological changes; AD = Alzheimer’s disease; ADinsuff = AD changes insufficient for diagnosis; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; FTLD-TDP = frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 proteinopathy; HS = hippocampal sclerosis; LATE = Limbic age-related TDP-43 proteinopathy; LBinsuff = Lewy body disease insufficient for diagnosis of PD or DLB; PD = Parkinson’s disease; PART = primary age-related tauopathy; PSP = microscopic changes consistent with progressive supranuclear palsy; VaD = vascular dementia. For all subjects, exact age is not specified due to privacy regulations. N/A = not available or not done. Yellow = Major neuropathological diagnosis.

Published diagnostic clinicopathological consensus criteria for age-related and neurodegenerative brain disease 59-71 were used when applicable, incorporating research clinical assessment results as well as pertinent private medical history. The histological sampling and staining incorporated the protocols recommended by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA) 69-71.

Immunohistochemical staining for OMP-1, TH and SNAP-25 was done with commercially obtained antibodies (OMP-1 Novus Biologicals NB110-74751; TH Sigma Aldrich T2928; SNAP-25 Sigma-Aldrich S9684) on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections of olfactory bulb. Epitope exposure methods used included 20 minutes in boiling 0.1 M sodium citrate for OMP-1 and TH, and 20 minutes in 80% formic acid for SNAP-25. Primary antibody concentrations used were 1;2,000 for OMP-1, 1:3,000 for TH and 1:5,000 for SNAP-25. Control sections omitted the primary antibodies. Four images per case were captured from slides stained with each antibody. The final magnifications used were 200x for OMP-1 and 400x for TH and SNAP25. Image capture and analyses were done while blinded to subject clinical or autopsy information.

The area occupied by stained tissue elements within the olfactory bulb nerve fiber layer and adjacent glomerular layer was determined with digital image analysis (Image J software with image processing and analysis in Java: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/). The means of the areas occupied by staining in the 4 images were used for statistical analyses, performed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0). Methods included unpaired, two-way t-tests for continuous variables, as well as analysis of variance with post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise significance testing. Fisher Exact tests were used to test for proportional differences and linear regression for relationships between continuous variables. The probability level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows basic data for the cases studied. COVID-19 cases did not significantly differ in age from the non-COVID-19 cases (82.3, SD 8.9 vs 86.2, SD 9.2, respectively). Males made up 11/18 and 18/28 of the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases, respectively (ns). Both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases had a wide range of neuropathological diagnoses, consistent with their age and derivation from BSHRI, a research center devoted to the study of aging and neurodegenerative disease.

Figures 1 and 2 show photomicrographs and quantification results, respectively, for OMP-1, TH and SNAP-25 immunoreactivity in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 control cases. As expected from previous reports, positive OMP-1 staining was restricted to the peripheral nerve fiber and glomerular cell layers while TH and especially SNAP-25 were more diffusely distributed throughout the bulb. The area occupied by OMP-1 immunoreactivity in COVID-19 cases was significantly less, about 60% of that in control cases; t(43) = -2.908; p= 0.006 (Figure 2a). Analysis of variance showed an overall difference in OMP-1 immunoreactivity between the groups when controls were subdivided by the presence or absence of non-COVID-19 pneumonia; F (2,42) = 4.176; p = 0.022 (Figure 2a). Pairwise post hoc significance testing showed significant differences between the COVID-19 group and the controls without pneumonia (p = 0.048) but no differences between the COVID-19 group and the controls with pneumonia. There was no statistical difference between controls with and without pneumonia.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Photomicrographs representative of OMP-1, TH and SNAP-25 immunoreactivity in a) non-COVID-19 control cases and b) in COVID-19 cases at low and high magnifications, in sections of olfactory bulb. The second row for each set shows the magnification used for image analysis. Immunoreactivity for OMP-1 (dark purple) consists solely of fibers and puncta, consistent with axons and presynaptic terminals, and is restricted to the nerve fiber layer and glomerular layer, as expected from the known termination of nasopharyngeal olfactory sensory afferents. Staining for TH and particularly SNAP-25 (both are dark purple) is distributed more widely. Neuronal cell bodies and dendrites are apparent in the TH-stained sections while only fibers and puncta, consistent with axons, dendrites and synaptic terminals, are seen in the SNAP-25-stained sections.

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Quantification results for OMP-1, TH and SNAP-25 immunoreactivity for each group. All controls include both controls with and without pneumonia. Means and standard deviations of the means are represented. * = p < 0.05 (see text for precise p values).

Analysis of variance showed no significant group differences for TH (Figure 2b) while for SNAP-25 (Figure 2c) the group difference was significant; F (2,38) = 3.878; p = 0.029. Significantly less SNAP-25 staining was present in controls with pneumonia as compared to controls without pneumonia (p = 0.025) but there were no significant differences between COVID-19 cases and all controls, or between COVID-19 cases and controls subdivided by presence or absence of pneumonia.

As COVID-19 cases differed with respect to the presence or absence of olfactory bulb SARS-CoV-2 RNA, as detected by RT-PCR, we compared immunoreactivity for the 3 antibodies in the PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases versus all controls. For OMP-1, analysis of variance showed a significant difference between groups; F (2,42) = 4.251; p = 0.02. Post hoc significance testing showed a significant difference between OBT-PCR-negative COVID-19 cases and controls (p = 0.027) but no significant difference between COVID-19 OBT-PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases. Analysis of variance of the same groups for TH or SNAP-25 staining showed no significant group differences (p = 0.239 and 0.714, respectively).

Comparing COVID-19 cases and controls for the presence or absence of a major, neuropathologically-diagnosed neurodegenerative or cerebrovascular disease, analysis of variance showed no significant difference between groups, with any of the 3 antibodies.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease but with up to 36% of patients showing neurological effects 1-10, there is enormous potential for this additional morbidity and so it is of high importance that the mechanisms of CNS impairment be understood. At present the relative contributions of direct viral brain invasion versus indirect factors are unclear. The most unequivocal direct viral manifestation is acute encephalitis, with a reported mortality rate of 13%, but this has been estimated to occur in only 0.2% of all cases 72; furthermore, this is likely an overestimate as virtually all diagnoses have been made radiologically and could not have distinguished between autoimmune mechanisms versus direct viral brain infection. Systemic accompaniments of critical illness, including coagulopathy, aberrant immune responses, hypoxia and multi-organ failure are therefore more likely to account for most of the reported COVID-19-associated neurological syndromes 11.

Postmortem brain tissue studies support this likelihood, with more than 20 published studies 11-31 using RT-PCR in general agreement that SARS-CoV-2 brain invasion occurs in only a smaller fraction of subjects, and in these the viral copy numbers are often low 13,31-35. In our own comprehensive brain mapping of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 320 brain regions of 20 deceased COVID-19 subjects, the olfactory bulb has been found to be the single most-involved area46,47 but still was positive in only 8 of 20 cases. More than 5,000 gene expression changes were present in the olfactory bulb in COVID-19 cases as compared to control autopsies, but there were no differences between COVID-19 cases with positive versus negative RT-PCR results 47. Fewer gene expression changes, but still more than 1,000, were found in the amygdala, a main projection target of the olfactory bulb, despite only 2/20 cases being RT-PCR positive there. Pathway analysis for the amygdala indicated enrichment and downregulation, respectively, of immune signaling and neuronal/synaptic networks while in olfactory bulb the top upregulated pathway was related to olfactory signaling.

As SARS-CoV-2 invariably infects the nasopharyngeal mucosa and associated olfactory epithelium 27,31,36,39-45, frequently resulting in hyposmia 36-38, we hypothesized that a large fraction of COVID-19-related olfactory bulb transcriptional changes may be due to its deafferentation during COVID-19, as spontaneous discharge of olfactory epithelial afferents is a dominant regulator of olfactory bulb neurophysiological activity and connectivity48-50.

In this study we report that the olfactory marker protein (OMP-1), a specific marker of olfactory epithelial afferents to the olfactory bulb51-53, is significantly depleted in the olfactory bulb of subjects dying with COVID-This parallels what has been reported in animal model lesions of olfactory epithelium48,54-57. Unlike in some animal models 54,55,58, we did not find that olfactory bulb tyrosine hydroxylase is significantly depleted in the COVID-19 subjects, but this may be dependent on the time elapsed from deafferentation. There was no depletion of SNAP-25, a protein found in most or all neuronal synapses, supporting a selective effect of COVID-19 on olfactory epithelial axons. Neither gene expression changes or OMP-1 immunoreactivity were significantly different in COVID-19 olfactory bulbs with or without positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2 RNA, reinforcing an emerging recognition that CNS alterations in COVID-19 may, in the majority of subjects, occur independently of direct viral action.

We suggest that at least some of the COVID-19-associated transcriptional changes that we have reported for the amygdala may be due to transsynaptic effects initiated by olfactory bulb deafferentation, as the amygdala and other brain regions are directly innervated by the olfactory bulb. Olfactory stimulation activates neurons of the amygdala 73, while olfactory bulbectomy in mice has been reported to cause piriform cortex reactions including activation of interneurons, apoptosis of pyramidal neurons and downregulation of regulatory pathways 74-79. A UK Biobank imaging study of 401 subjects before and after SARS-CoV-2 infection 80 found markers of tissue damage were primarily in olfactory-related brain regions including the medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior insula, the anterior cingulate cortex and the amygdala. Metabolic imaging in patients with “long COVID” found hypometabolism in the amygdala, hippocampus, and bilateral rectal and orbital gyri 81, similarly to the decreased global cerebral glucose utilization reported after olfactory bulbectomy in an animal model 82. A recent study has reported evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection of supporting olfactory epithelium sustentacular cells may be the cause of olfactory sensory dysfunction in COVID-19 83.

Transsynaptic changes following olfactory deafferentation may have diverse behavioral effects. Olfactory bulbectomy is the basis of a rat model of depression 84-86 associated with inflammatory and intermediate early gene expression in the amygdala 87,88, and olfactory bulbectomy has also been associated with memory and cognitive deficits thought to be related to basal forebrain cholinergic effects 89-94, providing a possible substrate for diverse post-acute COVID-19 neurological sequelae.

In conclusion, we report a significant depletion, in olfactory bulb of subjects dying with COVID-19, of OMP-1, a specific marker of primary olfactory sensory input. This may be a structural correlate of the clinical hyposmia reported for many subjects with COVID-19. Associated transsynaptic effects may result in more widespread changes in interconnected brain regions. Limitations of our study include relatively small subject numbers, especially for subgroups, and inclusion of only COVID-19 subjects with severe illness.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was supported by a Covid-19 Supplement to a National Institute on Aging grant, (3P30AG019610-20S1), submitted in response to a Notice of Special Interest (NOSI) issued by the National Institute on Aging (NOT-AG-20-022), to highlight the urgent need for research on Coronavirus Disease 2019….

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Yassin, A, Nawaiseh, M, Shaban, A, et al. Neurological manifestations and complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2021; 21:138.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.
    Varatharaj, A, Thomas, N, Ellul, MA, et al. Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: a UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; 7:875–882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Delamarre, L, Gollion, C, Grouteau, G, et al. COVID-19-associated acute necrotising encephalopathy successfully treated with steroids and polyvalent immunoglobulin with unusual IgG targeting the cerebral fibre network. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020; 91:1004–1006.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.
    Ghannam, M, Alshaer, Q, Al-Chalabi, M, et al. Neurological involvement of coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review. J Neurol. 2020; 267:3135–3153.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.
    Anand, PZLBNHDHGDMC-AAM. Neurologic Findings Among Inpatients with COVID-19 at a Safety-Net U.S. Hospital. Neurology Clin Practice. 2020; In press.
  6. 6.
    Kremer, S, Lersy, F, de, SJ, et al. Brain MRI Findings in Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Observational Study. Radiology. 2020; 297:E242–E251.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.
    Pons-Escoda, A, Naval-Baudin, P, Majos, C, et al. Neurologic Involvement in COVID-19: Cause or Coincidence? A Neuroimaging Perspective. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020; 41:1365–1369.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.
    Romero-Sanchez, CM, Diaz-Maroto, I, Fernandez-Diaz, E, et al. Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: The ALBACOVID registry. Neurology. 2020; 95:e1060–e1070.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    Ellul, MA, Benjamin, L, Singh, B, et al. Neurological associations of COVID-19. Lancet Neurol. 2020; 19:767–783.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Guerrero, JI, Barragan, LA, Martinez, JD, et al. Central and peripheral nervous system involvement by COVID-19: a systematic review of the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, neuropathology, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and cerebrospinal fluid findings. BMC Infect Dis. 2021; 21:515.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Deigendesch, N, Sironi, L, Kutza, M, et al. Correlates of critical illness-related encephalopathy predominate postmortem COVID-19 neuropathology. Acta Neuropathol. 2020; 140:583–586.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    Thakur, KT, Miller, EH, Glendinning, MD, et al. COVID-19 neuropathology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital. Brain. 2021.
  13. 13.↵
    Bhatnagar, J, Gary, J, Reagan-Steiner, S, et al. Evidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Replication and Tropism in the Lungs, Airways, and Vascular Endothelium of Patients With Fatal Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Autopsy Case Series. J Infect Dis. 2021; 223:752–764.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.
    Roden, AC, Vrana, JA, Koepplin, JW, et al. Comparison of In Situ Hybridization, Immunohistochemistry, and Reverse Transcription-Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Testing in Tissue. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021; 145:785–796.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.
    Sablone, S, Solarino, B, Ferorelli, D, et al. Post-mortem persistence of SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary study. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2021.
  16. 16.
    Skok, K, Stelzl, E, Trauner, M, et al. Post-mortem viral dynamics and tropism in COVID-19 patients in correlation with organ damage. Virchows Arch. 2020.
  17. 17.
    Deinhardt-Emmer, S, Wittschieber, D, Sanft, J, et al. Early postmortem mapping of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in patients with COVID-19 and correlation to tissue damage. bioRxiv. 2020;2020.
  18. 18.
    Bihlmaier, K, Coras, R, Willam, C, et al. Disseminated Multifocal Intracerebral Bleeding Events in Three Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation As Rescue Therapy. Crit Care Explor. 2020; 2:e0218.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.
    Freij, BJ, Gebara, BM, Tariq, R, et al. Fatal central nervous system co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis in a healthy child. BMC Pediatr. 2020; 20:429.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.
    Matschke, J, Lutgehetmann, M, Hagel, C, et al. Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: a post-mortem case series. Lancet Neurol. 2020; 19:919–929.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    Wichmann, D, Sperhake, JP, Lutgehetmann, M, et al. Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2020; 173:268–277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    Paniz-Mondolfi, A, Bryce, C, Grimes, Z, et al. Central nervous system involvement by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). J Med Virol. 2020; 92:699–702.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.
    Menter, T, Haslbauer, JD, Nienhold, R, et al. Postmortem examination of COVID-19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings in lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction. Histopathology. 2020; 77:198–209.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.
    Al-Sarraj, S, Troakes, C, Hanley, B, et al. Invited Review: The spectrum of neuropathology in COVID-19. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2020.
  25. 25.
    Jensen, MP, Le, QJ, Officer-Jones, L, et al. Neuropathological findings in two patients with fatal COVID-19. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2020.
  26. 26.
    Kantonen, J, Mahzabin, S, Mayranpaa, MI, et al. Neuropathologic features of four autopsied COVID-19 patients. Brain Pathol. 2020; 30:1012–1016.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Meinhardt, J, Radke, J, Dittmayer, C, et al. Olfactory transmucosal SARS-CoV-2 invasion as a port of central nervous system entry in individuals with COVID-19. Nat Neurosci. 2020.
  28. 28.
    Puelles, VG, Lutgehetmann, M, Lindenmeyer, MT, et al. Multiorgan and Renal Tropism of SARS-CoV-2. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383:590–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    Remmelink, M, De, MR, D’Haene, N, et al. Unspecific post-mortem findings despite multiorgan viral spread in COVID-19 patients. Crit Care. 2020; 24:495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    Solomon, IH, Normandin, E, Bhattacharyya, S, et al. Neuropathological Features of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383:989–992.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Lopez, G, Tonello, C, Osipova, G, et al. Olfactory bulb SARS-CoV-2 infection is not paralleled by the presence of virus in other central nervous system areas. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2021.
  32. 32.
    Hur, KH, Park, K, Lim, Y, et al. Evaluation of Four Commercial Kits for SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Approved by Emergency-Use-Authorization in Korea. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020; 7:521.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    Barra, GB, Santa Rita, TH, Mesquita, PG, et al. Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Two RT-qPCR Protocols for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Performed in an Automated Workflow. Genes (Basel). 2020; 11.
  34. 34.
    Wolfel, R, Corman, VM, Guggemos, W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. 2020; 581:465–469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    El Jamal, SM, Pujadas, E, Ramos, I, et al. Tissue-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in fatal COVID-19 infections: Sustained direct viral-induced damage is not necessary to drive disease progression. Hum Pathol. 2021; 114:110–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Bhatta, S, Sharma, D, Sharma, S, et al. Smell and Taste Disturbance in COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Multicenteric Review. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;1–7.
  37. 37.
    Levinson, R, Elbaz, M, Ben-Ami, R, et al. Anosmia and dysgeusia appeared early in third of our patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and were short-lived in most patients. MEDRXIV. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20055483.
  38. 38.↵
    Eliezer, M, Hautefort, C, Hamel, AL, et al. Sudden and Complete Olfactory Loss Function as a Possible Symptom of COVID-19. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020.
  39. 39.↵
    Jiao, L, Yang, Y, Yu, W, et al. The olfactory route is a potential way for SARS-CoV-2 to invade the central nervous system of rhesus monkeys. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021; 6:169.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.
    Ye, Q, Zhou, J, He, Q, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mouse olfactory system. Cell Discov. 2021; 7:49.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Monchatre-Leroy, E, Lesellier, S, Wasniewski, M, et al. Hamster and ferret experimental infection with intranasal low dose of a single strain of SARS-CoV-2. J Gen Virol. 2021; 102.
  42. 42.
    de Melo, GD, Lazarini, F, Levallois, S, et al. COVID-19-related anosmia is associated with viral persistence and inflammation in human olfactory epithelium and brain infection in hamsters. Sci Transl Med. 2021; 13.
  43. 43.
    Lima, M, Siokas, V, Aloizou, AM, et al. Unraveling the Possible Routes of SARS-COV-2 Invasion into the Central Nervous System. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2020; 22:37.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Xydakis, MS, Albers, MW, Holbrook, EH, et al. Post-viral effects of COVID-19 in the olfactory system and their implications. Lancet Neurol. 2021; 20:753–761.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Zhang, AJ, Lee, AC, Chu, H, et al. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infects and Damages the Mature and Immature Olfactory Sensory Neurons of Hamsters. Clin Infect Dis. 2021; 73:e503–e512.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Serrano, GE, Walker, JE, Arce, R, et al. Mapping of SARS-CoV-2 Brain Invasion and Histopathology in COVID-19 Disease. medRxiv. 2021.
  47. 47.↵
    Piras, IS, Huentelman, MJ, Walker, JE, et al. Olfactory Bulb and Amygdala Gene Expression Changes in Subjects Dying with COVID-19. medRxiv. 2021.
  48. 48.↵
    Buiakova, OI, Baker, H, Scott, JW, et al. Olfactory marker protein (OMP) gene deletion causes altered physiological activity of olfactory sensory neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93:9858–9863.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.
    Lorenzon, P, Redolfi, N, Podolsky, MJ, et al. Circuit formation and function in the olfactory bulb of mice with reduced spontaneous afferent activity. J Neurosci. 2015; 35:146–160.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    Redolfi, N and Lodovichi, C. Spontaneous Afferent Activity Carves Olfactory Circuits. Front Cell Neurosci. 2021; 15:637536.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Margolis, FL. Olfactory marker protein (OMP). Scand J Immunol Suppl. 1982; 9:181–199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.
    Monti-Graziadei, GA, Margolis, FL, Harding, JW, et al. Immunocytochemistry of the olfactory marker protein. J Histochem Cytochem. 1977; 25:1311–1316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    Wensley, CH, Stone, DM, Baker, H, et al. Olfactory marker protein mRNA is found in axons of olfactory receptor neurons. J Neurosci. 1995; 15:4827–4837.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    Biffo, S, DeLucia, R, Mulatero, B, et al. Carnosine-, calcitonin gene-related peptide-and tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactivity in the mouse olfactory bulb following peripheral denervation. Brain Res. 1990; 528:353–357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.↵
    Byrd, CA. Deafferentation-induced changes in the olfactory bulb of adult zebrafish. Brain Res. 2000; 866:92–100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.
    Cummings, DM, Emge, DK, Small, SL, et al. Pattern of olfactory bulb innervation returns after recovery from reversible peripheral deafferentation. J Comp Neurol. 2000; 421:362–373.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Verhaagen, J, Oestreicher, AB, Grillo, M, et al. Neuroplasticity in the olfactory system: differential effects of central and peripheral lesions of the primary olfactory pathway on the expression of B-50/GAP43 and the olfactory marker protein. J Neurosci Res. 1990; 26:31–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    Paskin, TR, Iqbal, TR, and Byrd-Jacobs, CA. Olfactory bulb recovery following reversible deafferentation with repeated detergent application in the adult zebrafish. Neuroscience. 2011; 196:276–284.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Nelson, PT, Dickson, DW, Trojanowski, JQ, et al. Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE): consensus working group report. Brain. 2019; 142:1503–1527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Dickson, DW, Rademakers, R, and Hutton, ML. Progressive supranuclear palsy: pathology and genetics. Brain Pathol. 2007; 17:74–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.
    Dickson, DW, Ahmed, Z, Algom, AA, et al. Neuropathology of variants of progressive supranuclear palsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2010; 23:394–400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.
    Crary, JF, Trojanowski, JQ, Schneider, JA, et al. Primary age-related tauopathy (PART): a common pathology associated with human aging. Acta Neuropathol. 2014; 128:755–766.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.
    Kovacs, GG, Ferrer, I, Grinberg, LT, et al. Aging-related tau astrogliopathy (ARTAG): harmonized evaluation strategy. Acta Neuropathol. 2016; 131:87–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Roman, GC, Tatemichi, TK, Erkinjuntti, T, et al. Vascular dementia: diagnostic criteria for research studies. Report of the NINDS-AIREN International Workshop. Neurology. 1993; 43:250–260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Mackenzie, IR, Neumann, M, Baborie, A, et al. A harmonized classification system for FTLD-TDP pathology. Acta Neuropathol. 2011; 122:111–113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.
    Gelb, DJ, Oliver, E, and Gilman, S. Diagnostic criteria for Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol. 1999; 56:33–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.
    Dickson, DW, Braak, H, Duda, JE, et al. Neuropathological assessment of Parkinson’s disease: refining the diagnostic criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2009; 8:1150–1157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. 68.
    Dickson, DW. Required techniques and useful molecular markers in the neuropathologic diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. Acta Neuropathol. 2005; 109:14–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Hyman, BT, Phelps, CH, Beach, TG, et al. National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2012; 8:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. 70.
    Montine, TJ, Phelps, CH, Beach, TG, et al. National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer’s disease: a practical approach. Acta Neuropathol. 2012; 123:1–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.↵
    McKeith, IG, Dickson, DW, Lowe, J, et al. Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB Consortium. Neurology. 2005; 65:1863–1872.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    Siow, I, Lee, KS, Zhang, JJY, et al. Encephalitis as a neurological complication of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, outcomes, and predictors. Eur J Neurol. 2021; 28:3491–3502.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Kikusui, T, Kajita, M, Otsuka, N, et al. Sex differences in olfactory-induced neural activation of the amygdala. Behav Brain Res. 2018; 346:96–104.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    Wilson, DA, Best, AR, and Brunjes, PC. Trans-neuronal modification of anterior piriform cortical circuitry in the rat. Brain Res. 2000; 853:317–322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  75. 75.
    Kim, HH, Puche, AC, and Margolis, FL. Odorant deprivation reversibly modulates transsynaptic changes in the NR2B-mediated CREB pathway in mouse piriform cortex. J Neurosci. 2006; 26:9548–9559.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.
    Koliatsos, VE, Dawson, TM, Kecojevic, A, et al. Cortical interneurons become activated by deafferentation and instruct the apoptosis of pyramidal neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101:14264–14269.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.
    Capurso, SA, Calhoun, ME, Sukhov, RR, et al. Deafferentation causes apoptosis in cortical sensory neurons in the adult rat. J Neurosci. 1997; 17:7372–7384.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.
    Zhou, L, Welsh, AM, Chen, D, et al. NMDA inhibitors cause apoptosis of pyramidal neurons in mature piriform cortex: evidence for a nitric oxide-mediated effect involving inhibitory interneurons. Neuropharmacology. 2007; 52:1528–1537.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. 79.↵
    Leung, CH and Wilson, DA. Trans-neuronal regulation of cortical apoptosis in the adult rat olfactory system. Brain Res. 2003; 984:182–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. 80.↵
    Douaud, Gl, Lee, S, Alfaro-Almagro, F, et al. Brain imaging before and after COVID-19 in UK Biobank. medRxiv. 2021;2021.
  81. 81.↵
    Guedj, E, Campion, JY, Dudouet, P, et al. (18)F-FDG brain PET hypometabolism in patients with long COVID. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48:2823–2833.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    Skelin, I, Sato, H, and Diksic, M. Olfactory bulbectomy reduces cerebral glucose utilization: 2-[14C]deoxyglucose autoradiographic study. Brain Res Bull. 2008; 76:485–492.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.↵
    Khan, M, Yoo, SJ, Clijsters, M, et al. Visualizing in deceased COVID-19 patients how SARS-CoV-2 attacks the respiratory and olfactory mucosae but spares the olfactory bulb. Cell. 2021; 184:5932–5949.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Kelly, JP, Wrynn, AS, and Leonard, BE. The olfactory bulbectomized rat as a model of depression: an update. Pharmacol Ther. 1997; 74:299–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. 85.
    Leonard, BE. The olfactory bulbectomized rat as a model of depression. Pol J Pharmacol Pharm. 1984; 36:561–569.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    Skelin, I, Kovacevic, T, Sato, H, et al. Upregulated arachidonic acid signalling in the olfactory bulbectomized rat model of depression. Neurochem Int. 2011; 58:483–488.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    Wrynn, AS, Sebens, JB, Koch, T, et al. Prolonged c-Jun expression in the basolateral amygdala following bulbectomy: possible implications for antidepressant activity and time of onset. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2000; 76:7–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    Burke, NN, Geoghegan, E, Kerr, DM, et al. Altered neuropathic pain behaviour in a rat model of depression is associated with changes in inflammatory gene expression in the amygdala. Genes Brain Behav. 2013; 12:705–713.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    Takahashi, K, Tsuji, M, Nakagawasai, O, et al. Activation of cholinergic system partially rescues olfactory dysfunction-induced learning and memory deficit in mice. Behav Brain Res. 2021; 408:113283.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Moriguchi, S, Inagaki, R, and Fukunaga, K. Memantine improves cognitive deficits via KATP channel inhibition in olfactory bulbectomized mice. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2021; 117:103680.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.
    Moriguchi, S, Inagaki, R, Shimojo, H, et al. Memantine Improves Depressive-like Behaviors via Kir6.1 Channel Inhibition in Olfactory Bulbectomized Mice. Neuroscience. 2020; 442:264–273.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.
    Yabuki, Y, Matsuo, K, Hirano, K, et al. Combined Memantine and Donepezil Treatment Improves Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia-Like Behaviors in Olfactory Bulbectomized Mice. Pharmacology. 2017; 99:160–171.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.
    Bobkova, N, Vorobyov, V, Medvinskaya, N, et al. Immunization Against Specific Fragments of Neurotrophin p75 Receptor Protects Forebrain Cholinergic Neurons in the Olfactory Bulbectomized Mice. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016; 53:289–301.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    Vorobyov, V, Medvinskaya, N, Deev, A, et al. Spatial memory deficits initiated by agroclavine injection or olfactory bulbectomy in rats are characterized by different levels of long-term potentiation expression in the hippocampus. Int J Neurosci. 2020; 130:1225–1229.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted December 23, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Deafferentation of Olfactory Bulb in Subjects Dying with COVID-19
Cécilia Tremblay, Thomas G. Beach, Anthony J. Intorcia, Jessica E. Walker, Richard A. Arce, Lucia I. Sue, Courtney M. Nelson, Claryssa I. Borja, Katsuko E. Suszczewicz, Madison P. Cline, Spencer J. Hemmingsen, Sanaria H. Qiji, Marc Desforges, Geidy E. Serrano
medRxiv 2021.12.21.21268119; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268119
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area