As a zoonotic disease that has already spread globally to several million human beings and possibly to domestic and wild animals, eradication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) appears practically impossible. There is a pressing need to improve our understanding of the immunology of this disease to contain the pandemic by developing vaccines and medicines for the prevention and treatment of patients. In this review, we aim to improve our understanding on the immune response and immunopathological changes in patients linked to deteriorating clinical conditions such as cytokine storm, acute respiratory distress syndrome, autopsy findings and changes in acute‐phase reactants, and serum biochemistry in COVID‐19. Similar to many other viral infections, asymptomatic disease is present in a significant but currently unknown fraction of the affected individuals. In the majority of the patients, a 1‐week, self‐limiting viral respiratory disease typically occurs, which ends with the development of neutralizing antiviral T cell and antibody immunity. The IgM‐, IgA‐, and IgG‐type virus‐specific antibodies levels are important measurements to predict population immunity against this disease and whether cross‐reactivity with other coronaviruses is taking place. High viral load during the first infection and repeated exposure to virus especially in healthcare workers can be an important factor for severity of disease. It should be noted that many aspects of severe patients are unique to COVID‐19 and are rarely observed in other respiratory viral infections, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia and lung tissue damage, a cytokine storm leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiorgan failure. Lymphopenia causes a defect in antiviral and immune regulatory immunity. At the same time, a cytokine storm starts with extensive activation of cytokine‐secreting cells with innate and adaptive immune mechanisms both of which contribute to a poor prognosis. Elevated levels of acute‐phase reactants and lymphopenia are early predictors of high disease severity. Prevention of development to severe disease, cytokine storm, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and novel approaches to prevent their development will be main routes for future research areas. As we learn to live amidst the virus, understanding the immunology of the disease can assist in containing the pandemic and in developing vaccines and medicines to prevent and treat individual patients.

There has been extensive progress in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of inflammation and immune regulation in allergic diseases of the skin and lungs during the last few years. Asthma and atopic dermatitis (AD) are typical diseases of type 2 immune responses. interleukin (IL)‐25, IL‐33, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin are essential cytokines of epithelial cells that are activated by allergens, pollutants, viruses, bacteria, and toxins that derive type 2 responses. Th2 cells and innate lymphoid cells (ILC) produce and secrete type 2 cytokines such as IL‐4, IL‐5, IL‐9, and IL‐13. IL‐4 and IL‐13 activate B cells to class‐switch to IgE and also play a role in T‐cell and eosinophil migration to allergic inflammatory tissues. IL‐13 contributes to maturation, activation, nitric oxide production and differentiation of epithelia, production of mucus as well as smooth muscle contraction, and extracellular matrix generation. IL‐4 and IL‐13 open tight junction barrier and cause barrier leakiness in the skin and lungs. IL‐5 acts on activation, recruitment, and survival of eosinophils. IL‐9 contributes to general allergic phenotype by enhancing all of the aspects, such as IgE and eosinophilia. Type 2 ILC contribute to inflammation in AD and asthma by enhancing the activity of Th2 cells, eosinophils, and their cytokines. Currently, five biologics are licensed to suppress type 2 inflammation via IgE, IL‐5 and its receptor, and IL‐4 receptor alpha. Some patients with severe atopic disease have little evidence of type 2 hyperactivity and do not respond to biologics which target this pathway. Studies in responder and nonresponder patients demonstrate the complexity of these diseases. In addition, primary immune deficiency diseases related to T‐cell maturation, regulatory T‐cell development, and T‐cell signaling, such as Omenn syndrome, severe combined immune deficiencies, immunodysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X‐linked syndrome, and DOCK8, STAT3, and CARD11 deficiencies, help in our understanding of the importance and redundancy of various type 2 immune components. The present review aims to highlight recent advances in type 2 immunity and discuss the cellular sources, targets, and roles of type 2 mechanisms in asthma and AD.

During the past years, there has been a global outbreak of allergic diseases, presenting a considerable medical and socioeconomical burden. A large fraction of allergic diseases is characterized by a type 2 immune response involving Th2 cells, type 2 innate lymphoid cells, eosinophils, mast cells, and M2 macrophages. Biomarkers are valuable parameters for precision medicine as they provide information on the disease endotypes, clusters, precision diagnoses, identification of therapeutic targets, and monitoring of treatment efficacies. The availability of powerful omics technologies, together with integrated data analysis and network‐based approaches can help the identification of clinically useful biomarkers. These biomarkers need to be accurately quantified using robust and reproducible methods, such as reliable and point‐of‐care systems. Ideally, samples should be collected using quick, cost‐efficient and noninvasive methods. In recent years, a plethora of research has been directed toward finding novel biomarkers of allergic diseases. Promising biomarkers of type 2 allergic diseases include sputum eosinophils, serum periostin and exhaled nitric oxide. Several other biomarkers, such as pro‐inflammatory mediators, miRNAs, eicosanoid molecules, epithelial barrier integrity, and microbiota changes are useful for diagnosis and monitoring of allergic diseases and can be quantified in serum, body fluids and exhaled air. Herein, we review recent studies on biomarkers for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma, chronic urticaria, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergies, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity and allergen immunotherapy. In addition, we discuss COVID‐19 and allergic diseases within the perspective of biomarkers and recommendations on the management of allergic and asthmatic patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

The prevalence of many chronic noncommunicable diseases has been steadily rising over the past six decades. During this time, over 350,000 new chemical substances have been introduced to the lives of humans. In recent years, the epithelial barrier theory came to light explaining the growing prevalence and exacerbations of these diseases worldwide. It attributes their onset to a functionally impaired epithelial barrier triggered by the toxicity of the exposed substances, associated with microbial dysbiosis, immune system activation, and inflammation. Diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory share common features such as an increased prevalence after the 1960s or 2000s that cannot (solely) be accounted for by the emergence of improved diagnostic methods. Other common traits include epithelial barrier defects, microbial dysbiosis with loss of commensals and colonization of opportunistic pathogens, and circulating inflammatory cells and cytokines. In addition, practically unrelated diseases that fulfill these criteria have started to emerge as multimorbidities during the last decades. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of diseases encompassed by the epithelial barrier theory and discuss evidence and similarities for their epidemiology, genetic susceptibility, epithelial barrier dysfunction, microbial dysbiosis, and tissue inflammation.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease with complex pathogenesis for which the cellular and molecular crosstalk in AD skin has not been fully understood.Methods: Skin tissues examined for spatial gene expression were derived from the upper arm of 6 healthy control (HC) donors and 7 AD patients (lesion and nonlesion). We performed spatial transcriptomics sequencing to characterize the cellular infiltrate in lesional skin. For single‐cell analysis, we analyzed the single‐cell data from suction blister material from AD lesions and HC skin at the antecubital fossa skin (4 ADs and 5 HCs) and full‐thickness skin biopsies (4 ADs and 2 HCs). The multiple proximity extension assays were performed in the serum samples from 36 AD patients and 28 HCs.Results: The single‐cell analysis identified unique clusters of fibroblasts, dendritic cells, and macrophages in the lesional AD skin. Spatial transcriptomics analysis showed the upregulation of COL6A5, COL4A1, TNC, and CCL19 in COL18A1‐expressing fibroblasts in the leukocyte‐infiltrated areas in AD skin. CCR7‐expressing dendritic cells (DCs) showed a similar distribution in the lesions. Additionally, M2 macrophages expressed CCL13 and CCL18 in this area. Ligand–receptor interaction analysis of the spatial transcriptome identified neighboring infiltration and interaction between activated COL18A1‐expressing fibroblasts, CCL13‐ and CCL18‐expressing M2 macrophages, CCR7‐ and LAMP3‐expressing DCs, and T cells. As observed in skin lesions, serum levels of TNC and CCL18 were significantly elevated in AD, and correlated with clinical disease severity.Conclusion: In this study, we show the unknown cellular crosstalk in leukocyte‐infiltrated area in lesional skin. Our findings provide a comprehensive in‐depth knowledge of the nature of AD skin lesions to guide the development of better treatments.

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and can present in an acute (aGVHD), a chronic lichenoid (clGVHD), and a chronic sclerotic form (csGVHD). It is unclear whether similar or different pathomechanisms lead to these distinct clinical presentations. To address this issue, we collected lesional skin biopsies from aGVHD (n = 25), clGVHD (n = 17), and csGVHD (n = 7) patients as well as serial nonlesional biopsies from HCT recipients (prior to or post-HCT) (n = 14) and subjected them to phenotypic and functional analyses. Our results revealed striking differences between aGVHD and clGVHD. In aGVHD, we found a clear predominance of T helper (Th)2 cytokines/chemokines and, surprisingly, of interleukin (IL)-22 messenger RNA as well as an increase of IL-22–producing CD4⁺ T cells. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin, a cytokine skewing the immune response toward a Th2 direction, was elevated at day 20 to 30 post-HCT in the skin of patients who later developed aGVHD. In sharp contrast to aGVHD, the immune response occurring in clGVHD showed a mixed Th1/Th17 signature with upregulated Th1/Th17 cytokine/chemokine transcripts and elevated numbers of interferon-γ– and IL-17–producing CD8⁺ T cells. Our findings shed new light on the T-cell responses involved in the different manifestations of cutaneous GVHD and identify molecular signatures indicating the development of the disease.