4.8 Article

A nanoluciferase SARS-CoV-2 for rapid neutralization testing and screening of anti-infective drugs for COVID-19

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19055-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Award NRSA (TL1) Training Core from NIH [TL1TR001440]
  2. McLaughlin Fellowship Endowment at UTMB
  3. NIH [AI114657, AI146081, U19AI100625, R00AG049092, R24AI120942, AI142759, AI134907, AI145617, UL1TR001439]
  4. STARs Award from the University of Texas System
  5. Sealy & Smith Foundation
  6. Kleberg Foundation
  7. John S. Dunn Foundation
  8. Amon G. Carter Foundation
  9. Gilson Longenbaugh Foundation
  10. Summerfield Robert Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high-throughput platform would greatly facilitate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing and antiviral screening. Here we present a high-throughput nanoluciferase severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2-Nluc) that is genetically stable and replicates similarly to the wild-type virus in cell culture. SARS-CoV-2-Nluc can be used to measure neutralizing antibody activity in patient sera within 5hours, and it produces results in concordance with a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Additionally, using SARS-CoV-2-Nluc infection of A549 cells expressing human ACE2 receptor (A549-hACE2), we show that the assay can be used for antiviral screening. Using the optimized SARS-CoV-2-Nluc assay, we evaluate a panel of antivirals and other anti-infective drugs, and we identify nelfinavir, rupintrivir, and cobicistat as the most selective inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2-Nluc (EC50 0.77 to 2.74 mu M). In contrast, most of the clinically approved antivirals, including tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, sofosbuvir, ledipasvir, and velpatasvir were inactive at concentrations up to 10 mu M. Collectively, this high-throughput platform represents a reliable tool for rapid neutralization testing and antiviral screening for 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

4.8
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