Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)-like pathological damages and constitutes an antiviral target.

ABSTRACT: Cytokine storm and multi-organ failure are the main causes of SARS-CoV-2-related death. However, the origin of excessive damages caused by SARS-CoV-2 remains largely unknown. Here we show that the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (2-E) protein alone is able to cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)-like damages in vitro and in vivo. 2-E proteins were found to form a type of pH-sensitive cation channels in bilayer lipid membranes. As observed in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, heterologous expression of 2-E channels induced rapid cell death in various susceptible cell types and robust secretion of cytokines and chemokines in macrophages. Intravenous administration of purified 2-E protein into mice caused ARDS-like pathological damages in lung and spleen. A dominant negative mutation lowering 2-E channel activity attenuated cell death and SARS-CoV-2 production. Newly identified channel inhibitors exhibited potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity and excellent cell protective activity in vitro and these activities were positively correlated with inhibition of 2-E channel. Importantly, prophylactic and therapeutic administration of the channel inhibitor effectively reduced both the viral load and secretion of inflammation cytokines in lungs of SARS-CoV-2-infected transgenic mice expressing human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE-2). Our study supports that 2-E is a promising drug target against SARS-CoV-2.

SUBMITTER: Xia B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190750 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition that is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Aerosolized prostacyclin has been used to improve oxygenation despite the limited evidence available so far.This review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children with ARDS.Search methodsIn this update, we searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 4); MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and three trials registers. We handsearched the reference lists of the latest reviews, randomized and non-randomized trials, and editorials, and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception to 5 May 2017.Selection criteriaWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data.Data collection and analysisThree authors independently abstracted data and resolved any disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We planned to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of aerosolized prostacyclin in adults and children, and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of methodological trial components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis.Main resultsWe included two RCTs with 81 participants.One RCT involved 14 critically ill children with ARDS (very low quality of evidence), and one RCT involved 67 critically ill adults (very low quality evidence).Only one RCT (paediatric trial) provided data on mortality and found no difference between intervention and control. However, this trial was eligible for meta-analysis due to a cross-over design.We assessed the benefits and harms of aerosolized prostacyclin. One RCT found no difference in improvement of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (mean difference (MD) -25.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.48 to 9.78; P = 0.16; 67 participants, very low quality evidence).There were no adverse events such as bleeding or organ dysfunction in any of the included trials. Due to the limited number of RCTs, we were unable to perform the prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses or trial sequential analysis.Authors' conclusionsWe are unable to tell from our results whether the intervention has an important effect on mortality because the results were too imprecise to rule out a small or no effect. Therefore, no current evidence supports or refutes the routine use of aerosolized prostacyclin for people with ARDS. There is an urgent need for more RCTs.

Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)-like pathological damages and constitutes an antiviral target.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure