4.5 Article

Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses

期刊

NATURE MICROBIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 562-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [ZIAAI001289, ZIAAI001284] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes the development of an approach to rapidly screen lineage B betacoronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV and the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2, for receptor usage and their ability to infect cell types from different species. Using it, they confirm human ACE2 as the receptor for SARs-CoV-2 and show that host protease processing during viral entry is a significant barrier for viral entry. Over the past 20 years, several coronaviruses have crossed the species barrier into humans, causing outbreaks of severe, and often fatal, respiratory illness. Since SARS-CoV was first identified in animal markets, global viromics projects have discovered thousands of coronavirus sequences in diverse animals and geographic regions. Unfortunately, there are few tools available to functionally test these viruses for their ability to infect humans, which has severely hampered efforts to predict the next zoonotic viral outbreak. Here, we developed an approach to rapidly screen lineage B betacoronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV and the recent SARS-CoV-2, for receptor usage and their ability to infect cell types from different species. We show that host protease processing during viral entry is a significant barrier for several lineage B viruses and that bypassing this barrier allows several lineage B viruses to enter human cells through an unknown receptor. We also demonstrate how different lineage B viruses can recombine to gain entry into human cells, and confirm that human ACE2 is the receptor for the recently emerging SARS-CoV-2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据